COMPENSATION

Grey River Argus, 15 May 1935, Page 2

COMPENSATION

For Workers INSURANCE COMPANIES STOP PAYMENTS. I’linng a recent sitting of the Court of Arbitration at Wellington, several cases were heard in which it was stated that the injured workers were compelled to go without their compensation payments for months previous, due to the fact that the insurance companies refused to continue to pay compensation unless the workers accepted the lump sum offer they had made: indeed, ni some cases the insurance companies made no offer whatever hut simply stopped the workers’ compensation at their own free will (says the “Transport Worker”). Tn all cases which have been brought under our notice, the Court has upheld the worker’s claim, and although he has now received the compensation payment to which he was entitled, the fact remains that for months previous The worker and his family were forced to live in a state of semi-starvation because the insurance conipanv exercised what they claim is their right tn stop his weekly compensation at anv time they desire io do so. In the first p'aee, let it be said that the Workers’ Compensation Act was never intended to give such power to insurance companies or to employers, and we do not know' of anv countrv in the world where such power is wielded ar the present time. AVhar right has an insurance conipanv to sav to a worker: “We will stop your compensation unless you accept our terms?” For some reason this has been construed as the law. but wc repeat that tin* law was never intend rd to give either the insurance companies or the employers that right. It 1s true that, for years past, it has been accepted by the Courts as being their right, but certain it is that the legislature never intended the law to act in that way. The adoption of this policy by insurance companies and ,’rnne employers deprives the workers of thousands of pounds annually which should l»e paid to them by way of Workers’ compensation, and this has become very prevalent during recent years for the sittings of the Court of Arbitration have been most irregu’ar. We say without hesitation that some of the insurance companies have taken full advantage of it. When the worker’s compensation is stopped, he is faced with the problem of having no income to maintain himself and his family during the period between the time that payment is stopped and the time his ease will come before the Court. Tt is not unusual for this to be six months nr more, and the unfortunate worker is, therefore. Compelled tn accept a lump sum settlement totally inadequate for the injuries he has received during the course of his employment. Apart from everything else, this is a most wasteful and unjust system, for under a commonsense compensation law every effort shou'd me made to restore the worker to normal health: under our present system the worker is so worried by insurance companies, by doctors’ examinations, and by legal questions that he develops neurasthenia. This delays his recovery, and is. therefore, more costly to the indusfrv and the nation.

On several occasions the Waterside Workers’ Federation and the Alliance of Labour have asked the Government to amend the law in accordance with the English Compensation Act. Under that Act, the insurance companies or tne employers cannot stop the worker’s compensation, except by the worker’s own consent, or on the opinion of his own medical adviser or by a court of competent jurisdiction. If the New Zealand law were amended in the same direction, the worker would have some immediate recourse to remedy the injustices which are now imposed upon him by the insurance companies. There is no logical reason why this question should not be referred to a magistrate and he would then be able to decide whether the compensation of the work er should be, stopped pending a final settlement or otherwise. We would prefer, of course, to have a case submitted to the Court of Arbitration. ■ but as the Court can. sit only at three-

monthly periods in each centre, it would not be convenient to~submit all eases to that tribunal. Probably the position may be met bv the appointment of certain magistrates in each centre to decide these questions as they arise. Certain it is that some remedy must he found, for manv workers have suffered grave injustices in this direction during recent years. The Government in the past has been most negligent on this matter. Industry pays a very heavy toll to insurance companies as premiums to cover workers against risk of accident. Thousands of pounds of profits have been made by these insurance companies, but it seems that they are not satisfied with a fair deal. Apart from everything else, a worker who meets with an accident during the course of his employment is entitled to all the protection that the public can give, and he is not asking too much when he • demands that the insurance companies shall not in future have the sole right to deprive a worker of the compensation to which he is justly entitled under the law.