Final Report On Laws Relating To The Liability Of Employers To Make Compensation To Their Employees For Injuries Received In The Course Of Their Employment Which Are In Force In Other Countries PDF Download

Excerpt from Final Report on Laws Relating to the Liability of Employers: To Make Compensation to Their Employees, for Injuries Received in the Course of Their, Employment Which Are in Force in Other Countries Much evidence has been taken bearing upon the general question, all of which appears in the appendix to ray first interim report, dated the 27th day of March, 1912, and the appendix to this report Before referring to the different systems in operation it may he proper to say that most of these laws, and perhaps all of them except the German, have not been in force long enough to enable a conclusive opinion to be formed as to their merits or demerits. There are two main types of compensation laws. By one of them the employer is individually liable for the payment of it, and that is the British system. By the other, which may but called the German system, the liability is not individual but collective, the industries being divided into groups, and the employers in the industries in each group being collectively liable for the payment of the compensation to the workmen employed in those industries - practically a system of compulsory mutual insurance under the management of the State. The laws of other countries are of one or other of these types, or modified forms of them, and in most, if not all of them, in which the principle of individual liability obtains, employers are required to insure against it. Those representing the workingmen at the beginning of the enquiry appeared to favour the adoption of the British system. Mr. F. W. Wegenast, who represented the Canadian Manufacturers Association, strongly urged the adoption of the German system, and his view was supported by meet of the other employers who appeared or were represented before me, and later on in the enquiry the representatives of the workingmen fell in with Mr. Wegenast's views. There were, however, differences of opinion as to details. The employers insisted that a part of the assessments to provide for the payment of the compensation should be paid by the employees, and this was vigorously opposed by the representatives of the workingmen. The employers desired that no compensation should be payable where the injury to the workman did not disable him from earning full wages for at least seven days, and to this the representatives of the workingmen objected. The employers also desired that, as the British act provides, an employee should not be entitled to compensation if his injury was due to his own serious and wilful misconduct, but the representatives of the workingmen objected to any such limitation of the right to compensation. As stated in my first interim report, I had then come to no conclusion as to these matters, or as to what system of compensation I should recommend for adoption, nor had I reached a conclusion as to the industries to which the law should be made applicable, nor as to certain other details which I enumerated in my report. After the best consideration I was able to give to the important matters as lo which I was commissioned by Your Honour to make recommendations, I came to the conclusion, to which I still adhere, that a compensation law framed on the main lines of the German law with the modifications I have embodied in my draft bill is better suited to the circumstances and conditions of this Province than the British compensation law, or the compensation law of any other country. About the Publisher Forgotten Books publishes hundreds of thousands of rare and classic books. Find more at www.forgottenbooks.com