WORKERS' INJURIES.

Press, Volume LXII, Issue 18722, 19 June 1926, Page 6

WORKERS' INJURIES.

COMPENSATION IN N.S.W.

(ITBOM OtJB OWW COBBESFOHDBHT.)

SYDNEY, June 10.

It is not at all unlikely that the Workers Compensation Act, which will come into force on July Ist, and will embody compulsory insurance in its most radical form, will provide a substantial harvest for the legal fraternity, when it comes to the interpretation of some of its provisions. The term "injury," for instance, as defined in the Act, means personal injury, "and includes a disease which is contracted by. the worker in the course of his employment, whether at' or away from his place of employment, and to which the employment was a contributing factor.". A pretty little bit of ambiguity is woven round that phrase, "to which the employment was a contributing factor." Perhaps it was inserted for the reason that ambiguity is a quality deemed essentially necessary to the clear undeistanding of Aots -of Parliament. Say employee No. 1 comes to his job with a heavy cold, and sita sneezing and coughing all day among his fellows. Employee No. 2, whose place at work is beside No. I,' now falls ill. He is prepared to swear that he has not knowingly come into contact with any source of infection except employee No. 1. Is this a "disease to which the employment, was a contributing factor? Or is it a disease arising out of conditions superimposed upon the employment. Lawyers incline to the' former view, which of course makes the employer liable. A doctor has gone so far as to say that an employee who attributes his influenza to a draught in which he hasi sat at his office or workshop, will have a valid claim for compensation. When employer and employee disagree over some of the clauses of this Act, as they inevitably will do, the lawyer will prosper.