WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Grey River Argus, 17 May 1932, Page 3

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

AMENDING BILL. In moving for leave to introduce the Workers’ Compensation Amendment Bill in the House before the session concluded, Mr H. E. Holland (Leader of the Opposition) said: — I want briefly to explain what the Bill amounts to, and if I can I also want to persuade the Government to take up the Bill and make it a Government measure. As the Prime Minister will see, the altered conditions of employment have made the change proposed in this Bill imperative. Clause 6 of the Workers’ Compensation Act. 1922, provides: “For the purposes of this Act tne term 'average weekly earnings’ means the average weekly earnings received by a worker while at work during the twelve months preceding the acciden + if he has been so long employed by the same employer, and if not, then for any less period during which he has been in the employment of the same employer; but in calculating such average no account shall be taken of any periods during which the worker has been absent from work.” Tn 1922 the Department of Labour issued a pamphlet entitled “ A Short Explanation of the Law of Workers’ Compensation as contained in the Workers’ Compensation Act of 1922.” In that pamphlet the Department presented the following interpretation: — “Compensation is calculated in every case, whether the accident is fatal or not, on the ‘average weekly earnings.’ The Act provides that the term “average weekly earnings’ means the average weekly earnings received by the worker while at work during the twelve months preceding the accident if he was so long employed by the same employer, and if not, then for any less period during which he was employed by such employer; and that in calculating such average no account shall be taken of any period during which the worker was absent from work — that e is to say, any period during which the worker is not working must be omitted from the calculation (section 6 (1). If, for example, a worker was employed for four weeks at £3 a week and was then absent on account of sickness for four weeks, and was then employed for four more weeks at £3 a week, his average weekly earnings would be calculated as £3 a week throughout. ’'

Apparently, however, that interpolation was upset by legal decisions; and, as I will show a little later, material changes detrimental to the injured workers have resulted. I propose to repeal section 6 of the Act of 1922, and to substitute clause 3 of the Bill which I am now asking leave to introduce. I would point out that the amendment which is proposed will not involve any increase in premiums. The only really new feature is subclause (1) of clause 2. Sub-clauses (2) and (3) are already included in the principal Act. Clause 2 reads:

“(1) For the purpose of ascertaining the compensation payable in any ease pursuant to this Act, a worker’s average weekly earnings shall be deemed to be not less than a full week’s earnings at the daily rate at which he was paid by thq employer in whoso service he was injured, whether in fact he had worked a full week during that service or not: Provided that the weekly compensation shall not exceed £4. “(2) Nothing herein contained shall deprive an injured worker of compensation in respect of any contract of service concurrent with that in fulfilling which he was injured. (3) In calculating the average weekly earnings no account shall be taken of any sums paid or payable to a worker to cover any special expenses entailed on him by the nature of his employment.” The last two sub-clauses, as I have stated, are already in the existing leg islation. Sub-clause (4) is consequential, and repeals section 6 of the principal Act. The need for the change provided in this Bill has arisen since the adoption of relief work and the broken time that has resulted in many industries from the economic depression. It is particularly needed in the coal mines. When the Act of 1922 was before the House in the form of a Bill it was recognised that provision should be made for workers who would be placed in this position, and clause 7 was drafted to meet the cases of the waterside workers. That clause reads: ‘‘With respect to casual workers employed as stevedores, lumpers, or wharf labourers the following special rule shall apply: The worker’s average weekly earnings at the ordinary (but not overtime) rate of pay for the work he may not have actually worked or at which he was employed at the time of the accident, notwithstanding that the employment may not have actually continued for the full week, and the compensation shall be computed and a-so'-sed accordingly; but in no case of total incapacity shall the weekly payment be less than one pound.” All that I am asking is that piovisions similar to those which apply to the watersiders shall apply to other n.eu v.ho are working either on relief work or in other orcupations on broken time. Belief workers are employed only two or three days in the week, and for the purposes of the Act as now interpreted, the normal week's work is two or three cays as the case may be. Accordingly if a man ’s receiving say, 12/6 a day, his average weekly earnings for the purpose of the Act will be 25/- if ho is working two days, and 37/6 if he is working three days. That is under the old relief work scale. Weekly compensation will be fixed at two-thirds of either amount if the worker is injured or killed Under the new scale of relief payments ;li< weekly earnings will be 15/-, £1 ?/-, £l/10/-. £l/1(5/-, -,r £2 as the ease mat be, and the weekly compensation payable, unless some amendment of this kind is made, will be twe-thirds of each amount according to the relief work classification of the injured worker. If a man receiving 25/- a week should be killed, his dependents are now able to claim up to only twothirds of 25/- per week. If a married man receiving £2 per week should

be killed his widow and orphans can only claim compensation amounting to two-thirds v of £2 per week. The position is wholly unsatisfactory and unjust. In fatal cases, or where men meet with serious injuries, I am advised by Mr P. J. O’Regan, the effect of the existing legislation v\ill he to repeal the Workers’ Compensation Act by one-third or one-half. It will thus be seen that there is an urgent need!

for an alteration in the law. As I have pointed out, it is not only the relief worker who is adversely affected, but every man working broken time in the mines and elsewhere is m exactly the same position. This is not a contentious matter. The existing legislation was drafted in anticipation of full time employment, and the premiums are based accordingly, so that no question of an increase in the prem-

iums is involved. When this Bill is printed I propose to ask the Government to take it up this session if possible. and if this is not possible to take it up early next session and make it a Government measure.