COMPENSATION TO WORKERS

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIX, Issue 15124, 15 October 1912, Page 9

COMPENSATION TO WORKERS

SETTLING BY AGREEMENTS.

AN OBSCURELY WORDED PROVISO.

[BY TELKGIUrH.—I'BESS ASSOCIATION.]

Wellington-, Monday. I.v the course of a judgment in a, compensation case; where the plaintiff had signed an agreement purporting to diflchargo defendant from further liability, His Honor Mr. Justice Sim commented upon that portion of the Workers' Compensation Amendment Act of 1911 that provides for the settlement of disputes in this manner.

"It certainly is desirable," said His Honor, •'that parties should be able to settle these claims by agreement, and that they should be bound by such agreement, so "long as the settlement effected thereby is fair and reasonable in view of all tho circumstances. To make such a settlement impracticable or difficult will often operate injuriously against the class intended to be* protected. A worker with an unsettled claim to compensation often refrains from returning to work, although he is fit to do so, for fear of prejudicing his claim. His case may not be brought before the Court for months, and in tho end ho may recover for only a fraction of the time he has been away irom work. If such a claim could bo settled eimply and expeditiously, the worker would bo able to return to work, as soon as he had recovered from his injuries, and his loss would bo much less. In cases of neurasthenia the existence of an unsettled claim is of itself often sufficient to i prevent a complete recovery. In these cases ; a prompt settlement is in the interests of 1 the worker as well as of tho employer. " The only objection to a settlement of claims by agreement is that a. worker is 'induced sometimes to accept a small sum in final settlement of his claim without having had proper legal and medical advice, and without, realising that he has not fully recovered from the effects of the .injury. Any objection on this ground might nave been met-by adding a proviso to the section of the Act applying to this matter to the effect that the agreement should not be binding unless tho employer satisfied the Court in which it was challenged that the worker, or his dependents, had nude the agreement with a full understanding of what was being done, and after having had competent and independent advice as to any legal. and medical questions arising in connection with the ilaim. Instead, however, of dealing with the matter in this way, the Act of 1911 makes it necessary for tho agreement to be approved by a magistrate or an inspector of factories. ' "In cases where the injured worker "has died or been permanently injured, this provision would not have been so objectionable if the duty cast on the magistrate or inspector of factories had been merely that of satisfying himself that tho worker or his dependents understood claerly the effect of the agreement, and had made it after having obtained independent advice from competent advisers, but that is not what he has to do. Ho has to satisfy himself that tho terms of the agreement are on tho whole as favourable to the worker or to his representatives or dependents as are the provisions of this Act.

" The unfortunate magistrate or inspector therefore has to find out what legal and medical questions have arisen in connection with the claim. He has to solve all these questions properly, and having solved them and ascertained what ought to bo paid under the Act he has to consider whether the agreement gives terms on the whole as favourable as those given by the Act.

"It is not a matter for surprise that magistrates should have declined to attempt to discharge the impossible duty sought to be imposed on them by thjs section, and should have left it to the inspectors of factories to grapple as best they could with the task. " It is difficult to understand why the words " on the whole as favourable to the worker or to his representatives or dependents as arc the provisions of this Act' were not put into the section. The explanation appears to be that the draughtsman responsible for the section took them from section 58 of the principal Act. That section deals with a scheme of benefits in lieu of the compensation provided by the Act, and used in that, connection the language is appropriate. The draughtsman has taken this language and applied it to another subject matter without apparently taking the trouble to consider the meaning of the words or what their effect would be. It is unfortunate that the legislation on this subject, which ought to be particularly clear and intelligible, should have been reduced to such a state of confusion and absurdity by careless and incompetent draughtsmen. It is desirable that this should be remedied as soon as possible by the Legislature."