asked the Minister for Social Welfare whether he is aware that the Workmen's Compensation (Amendment) Act, 1948, has caused much disappointment in its operation in so far as many recipients of workmen's compensation have failed to derive any benefit by way of increased compensation, under the Act; and, if so, what action he proposes in the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Workmen's Compensation.
The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative.
A few cases have come to notice where injured workers have received from their employers or their employers' insurers either no increase in their weekly payments of compensation or a smaller increase than they considered they were entitled to under the Workmen's Compensation (Amendment) Act, 1948. As I have no power to intervene in such cases, I have had the suggestion made to inquirers that they should seek legal advice if they are dissatisfied with the amount of their weekly compensation payments. The power of determining claims under the Workmen's Compensation Acts and questions relating to such claims is vested in the Circuit Court. I may mention, for the Deputy's information, that the power of the court to review weekly rates of compensation because of fluctuations in wages was extended under the 1948 Act to cover cases which had not been the subject of a court order or registered agreement. It would appear from some inquiries received in the Department that the importance of this amendment, from the injured workman's point of view, is not generally appreciated.
Does the Minister not appreciate that people whose pre-accident earnings were 50/- and less have received no benefit whatever under the new Act; that people whose pre-accident earnings did not exceed £3 6s. 8d. receive benefit only to a limited extent; and, further, that people whose compensation is based on partial incapacity have received no benefit under the new Act? Does he not agree that in these cases hardship still exists and that their compensation should be increased on a pro rata basis with the compensation given in the 1948 Act?
Under Section 7 of the Workmen's Compensation (Amendment) Act, 1948, I put into the hands of injured workmen a potent instrument for securing a higher rate of compensation if their wages increased since the time they met with an accident. If the Deputy will consult some of his legal friends he will find that, in Section 7, they have a means of securing increased compensation if their wages increased since the accident. The Deputy apparently does not realise the potentialities of Section 7 of the 1948 Act, and, if he gets some legal advice, he will find that these people can recover a greater rate of compensation than he or some of those for whom he speaks appear to realise.
Does the Minister agree that persons whose pre-accident earnings were 50/- or less, and whose rate of wages did not increase in the meantime, would not benefit to any extent under the new Act? I quite realise that there is in existence machinery under which an applicant may claim an increase in compensation in respect of a fluctuation in wages, but does the Minister not realise that, in the three cases I instance, there is no machinery for providing increased compensation under existing legislation? I can prove that if the Minister wishes.
I cannot interpret, because that is the function of the Circuit Court, claims of injured workmen to particular scales of compensation. What I am saying to the Deputy is that the recent Workmen's Compensation Act raised the ceiling for workmen's compensation purposes from 37/6 to 50/- per week, and it provided also that, where an injured workman's wages increased, or would have increased if he had not been injured, and where he was previously conditioned by a maximum of 37/6, he can now go to the courts and secure either three-quarters of his current rate of wages, or 50/-, whichever is the lesser sum. That is a right he had not previously got, a right which was given to him by the 1948 Act. I do not think there are such infirmities in the 1948 Act as the Deputy appears to suggest, and I think injured workmen have a way out in the overwhelming majority of cases under Section 7.