NEW ZEALAND LABOUR LEGISLATION.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CVI, Issue 12588, 24 August 1901, Page 3

NEW ZEALAND LABOUR LEGISLATION.

• by a member op the house. VI. Insurance against the contingency of death, or accident has heen a marked feature of the social and industrial life of the colony during the last generation. Mors particularly as the population, became settled and permanent and premiums came within reasonable limits Hie inhabitants availed themselves of this form of provision against the inevitable till more than a tenth part are now covered by the policies granted by the various agencies concerned, a full half of them being issued by the Government Life Insurance Department. In addition, the various Friendly Societies have some 36,000 contributing members, and including the smaller private benefit societies, there arq over 40,000 persons included within the .sphere of their beneficial operations. To all this has of recent years been added the scheme of “accident insurance,” by which, for a small premium, it became possible for any person, employer or workman, to ensure the payment of a given sum as compensation for accidents received in any employment of whatever nature. Finally, policies could be obtained for compensation incase of injury or death, whether met with during working hours or otherwise. It was the adoption and extension of these later methods, under somewhat peculiar circumstances, which roused much irritation for some years amongst the working people, and was the direct cause of the passing, in 1899 of the. Wages Protection Act, and indirectly of the still more important Workers .Compensation Act in the year following. As the practice gained a footing and) developed, it was very truly represented as an admirable method of guaranteeing employers against any possible loss they might sustain by reason of decisions going against them in the judicial courts, under the Employers’ Liability Acts in cases of litigation and disputed responsibility. No one could anticipate with much confidence the results of such an action, - for knowledge of the nature of these acts, and the extent to which they applied, was not very widely diffused. To men who were immersed in the daily cares and anxieties of business the advice to “ Insure your workmen,” “ Employers liability guaranteed against,” probably produced the impression that amongst the labour legislation was some menacing enactment portending wonderful, bub unknown responsibilities. However, the impression was first created, it soon became contagious, nor were the agents of the companies engaged, likely to exert themselves in striving to remove such misapprehensions. “ Accident insurance” became the order of the day, during the middle of the last decade, and was zealously fostered, as the collection of - the premiums paid became daily more remunerative. The late Hon W. Downey Stewart, a legal member of Parliament, thus described the -prevailing impression in his place in the Upper House; “ This question was much exaggerated, and if he were an employer in a large way he would not insure except in very exceptional . circumstances. They saw placards ‘Employers Liability Act,’ ‘Accident Insurance’ in a? sort of sensational way, as if some startling alterations had been made in the law during the last few years. That was simply creating alarm for no other purpose than to secure business for these companies. It was an advertising medium, and some people were actually under the impression that these companies had the State behind 'them. They were under a complete delusion; as far as he knew.” Nevertheless, the business went on, and a very laudable and profitable business it was, till complaints found their way into Parliament, and the public prints, that many employers were deducting the premiums in small sums from the weekly wages -of their employees. -This wm ». manifest violation of the Truck Act of 1891, which provided that all wages should be paid in full, and in cash. A small Bill to amend that Act in such a way as to prevent the practice was introduced to Parliament in 1895, but too late in the session to receive consideration. Next year and oils o in 1897 and 1898, Bills were introduced dealing with the subject, entitled “Wages Protection,” but none of them were successful, and a good deal of feeling was engendered in their discussion. Incredulity as to the practice soon disappeared before the evidence available, but it was freely justified on account of beneficial intentions. In some instances the subject was complicated with, and almost identified with, the private benefit societies pok-en of in the last paper, till it was pointed out that in a friendly society of independent standing, ai member injured by accident obtained 'his pay, whilst retaining a right of action against bis employer if the circumstances warranted. Other practices came to light. Lying before mo as I write is a large printed handbill, headed in large type, “Notice to Employees,” in which a New Zealand proprietor and employer, whose name is signed thereto, announces -to 'his workmen that “ owing to the enforcement of the Employers’ Liability Acts . . . he has secured advantageous terms whereby, in case of injury they will be entitled to receive certain sums in compensation.” The pro. mi-urns payable were small, only amounting' to 4£d in the £ on their wages, and he further notifies his intention of deducting that amount! This sum equalled £1 17s 6d per cent, bub there were other instances far exceeding this, and workmen angrily asked why they should pay at all to relieve the employer, and -what was meant by “ enforcing the Acts ” (a very pertinent question). Also it transpired that when a man wax injured and received any sum in compensation, the form of receipt signed by him l released the employer and the insurance authorities “from any further claim I or my administrators may have,” which obviously set at defiance the Act of 1891, to be shortly referred to. Let us look back at the laws Which were the nominal reason for a.ll this friction so utterly unwarranted.

The Employers Liability Act, 1882, which applied in effect to all employees, except domestic servants, had been passed by a Parliament which did not contain a single labour representative -as the term is now commonly understood, but it had been passed with singular unanimity, almost ■with acclamation. Not one division took place in the Lower, and only one in the Upper House during its passage, and it remained on the Statute Book absolutely unchanged for nearly ten years. When it was amended in 1891 the amendments were more explanatory than otherwise. Seamen were declared to he' included within its scope, the mother of an illegitimate worker was to be recognised as his representative in case of injury as if the son was legitimate, and the maximum amount recoverable was fixed at £600; bub on the other hand the Court was specially enjoined to take into consideration any sums already paid by an employer to an injured l cm-, pioyee, or any sum coining to him from any fund to which the employer contributed on the employee’s behalf. Extension of time for bringing actions was also granted ahd any attempts to “contract out” by a pledge to forego any benefits arising fnom the Act were declared null and void. It was specifically declared that no workman should he entitled to recover compensation in respect of injury arising from his own negligence.

Other alterations took place next year in the Employers Liability Acts Amendment, 1892, mostly of a nominal character. The Railway Commissioners of that time were included as “ employers,” and greater clearness was brought into the relationship of the principal and the contractor, when a sub-contractor came into the question. The most important provision was the restriction of the defence of common employment which had prevailed in England before the foundation of New Zealand, and which had been so often and so successfully raised by employers as a defence against being held liable at law. Briefly stated, the doctrine ol common employment was" that for in-

juries to one servant by another servant of the same master, the said, master was not liable if he had employed, reasonable competent men, and supplied them with proper tools for work. It was based, on the theory that a man talcing work under an employ - er impliedly accepted all the ordinary risks incidental thereto, including that of being maimed or killed by a fellow .servant. Starting from such a point, which was only established in English law in 1837, it was soon held that common employment was a valid -defence if one workman injured another whilst “working in common,” -i.e., together, though serving different employers, and with such a breach the liability of employers showed signs of being slowly whittled away. The House of Lords in 1891, by a decision, checked this extension of the defence by limiting “ common employment ” to the cases of men working together in common in the same master's service, amd the New Zealand Act of 1892, amending the existing Acts embodied a clause to the same effect, thus establishing uniformity on this point with the English law. So far from being an innovation, it brought buck the defence to the lines established in 1837; nevertheless, a torrent of abuse was showered on the Hon W. P. Reeves in Parliament, the debates in which" at the time contrasts painfully with the spirit of the House in 1882..

Finally, s° uncertain were workpeople as to their” position in suing under the three Acts i.n question, that in case of injury remedy was taken against employers as "freely under the common law, i.e., “ the customary and formerly unwritten law of the land, mot- fixed or rigid, and' not promulgated by statute, but depending^on usage, and guiiled by the precedents of the past.” This latter practice was often more efficacious than a dependence on the statute law of the colony. Against this an employer always bad the right, if a decision went against him, o.f removing a case to the Supreme Court, the Appeal Court,_ and even the Privy Council, thus wearing out the patience and the funds of the plaintiff workman. After four. ineffective / .attempts in, as many years,' Parliament grappled the matter in 1899, and settled it- very firmly, by the Wages Protection Act of that date. It sets forth that:—Whereas there has lately grown up amongst certain employers a practice of taking out accident insurance policies to insure their workmen against accident and themselves against liability under the Employers Liability Acts, and of compelling or inducing their workmen to contribute, as premium for such insurance sums at a rate proportionate to their wages: And whereas suoh practice is oppressive, and it is expedient to prevent the same: And whereas it is also expedient to make other provisions for the protection of wages—this Act was .passed. It forbids any employer directly or indirectly to deduct anything from, wages, and further forbids any company receiving from any worker any money on. a policy indemnifying the employer against the three Acts and paying compensation to the worker. If employer and employed voluntarily arranged for .insurance, well and good; but the arrangement must be approved by a Stipendiary Magistrate, and in no case should the employee pay more than a third of the premium. In any other case the moneys improperly paid might be recovered. Next year, 1900, the Government Life Insurance Department was extended to embrace accident insurance; and the State entered the field as a competitor with those who had reaped such a fruitful harvest.