The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1913-07-08
SMALL EMPLOYERS
 NUI EXEMPT UNDER COMPENSATION ACT
JOKER IN REGENT LEGISLATION WRITTEN NOTICE EXCUSES
 EMPLOYER OF LESS
 THAN FIVE.

Hartford. July s+The worknen's compensation act has turned up a joker. Men who employ less than five workmen, who have supposed that un- der the provisions of the act they have an unpleasant awakening if they read the act carefully. As a mat ter of fact, the employer of less than five is bound by the act unless he serves notice on each of his employees and upon the compensation commits sioner that he will not be bound by its decisions. The only difference be- tween the big and the little employ ers- they having served notice that they will not be bound by the act, is that the big employer has his present com mon law defenses-fellow servant rule, assumption of risk and contributory, negligence-taken away from him, while the small employer can still pro tect his own interests under these de- lenses as at present. It is conf dently believed by all but the few who had the framing of the bill in hand, that the small employer. the man who has less than five worRmens is exempted from it's provisions. TO exempt himself he must serve notice as provided in the bill.
 These peculiar features of the law were discovered before the bill was passed III the K1OuSS O1A 4A<1y zO3 IL 4S said, but public knowledge of them was rigidIy suppressed by the House leaders, who feared that any attempt at amendment would mean the death of the biIl.s J. H. Blakeman of Strat- ford had an amendment prepared which would exempt the small. ern- ployers, which he tried to introduce at the request of the State Grange, but could not get the floor. Another amendment originated by the same body, totally exempting farm labor, was also killed before any one knew about it.
 The act which goes into effect Jan- uary 1, 1914, is divided into two parts. A and B. Part A is divided into two sections of which the first aboliShes the present common law defenses, that the injury was caused by the nesl1- gence of fellow employee, that the injured employee had assumed the risks of his employment. Section provides that these defenses shall not be abolished for the employer having less than five workmens or In suits for damages brought by casual em- pIoyees or by outworkers, and any employer who has accepted the com pensation act may use these defenses if sued at law for damages. The section reads:
 s+section 9 The provisions of Sec ton 1 of Part A of this act shall not apply to actions to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by em- ulovees of any employer having regu-a larIy less than i've employees. by, cas- t1al employees, or by oT1tworkers; nor shall the same provisions apply to- ac- lions against any employer who shall have accepted Part B of this act In the manner hereinafter prescribed"
 The word 'toutworkers'' is construed by those who drew the act to mean persons who take material to their homes to make up, as sweatshop work CTS,
 So far all seems plain enough The common law defenSes are not abol- ished for the men employing less than five workers Coming to Part B. Sec tion g. says: Every contract of em- pIoyment not made before the date Of fhis act shall be conclusively presun1- ed to include mutual agreement be- tween employer and employee to &C., cent Part B (which contains the rules for the administration of the act) of this act and be bound thereby, unless either employer or employee shall by written stipulation in the contract, or by such other notice as Is prescribed in section g. indicate his refusal to ac- cept the provisions of said Part B, Every contract of employment made before the date of this act and con- tinq1ed in force after said date, shall be .conclrsfvely presumed to include a mutual agfe6ment- unless either employer or employee has in caEed his refuSa1-.''
 In this paragraph the stress should be laid on the word s'every.'' Section provides that employer or employee must serve written notice of his re- f1saI to accept the act, with the other party and the compensation commis- eioner of the district. Notice may be served by personal presentation or by registered letter and becomes effective thirty days after service
 Section 4, outlining the effect of non-acceptance says that every ern- ployer not accepting the act shall be liable for lawsuit and may not use the common law defenses outlined in Part A, and every employee who re- fuses to accept the act shall not have the benefit of having the present com mon law defenses abolished, If he sues, and his employer has accepted the provisions of the act. Tt is thus seen-to sum up once more 1 that employers having less than five men are supposed to come within the scope of the act unless they give writ | ten notice Part B, Section 9, and that having given written notice of their refusal to the worknen and the l compensati ton commissioner (Part B, | Section 3, they may be sued for dam l ages, but may defend themselves with | the present common law defenses, as sumption of risk, fellow servant, and personal negligence.
 Inquiry yesterday brought forth the | fact that while the large factory en- pfoyer6 as a rule are preparing to accept the act and take out insurance 1 In some industrial liability insurance company, a few of the largest will cer- tify to the secretary of the state that they will have enough capital to pay | any damages that may be assessed against them by the compensation | commissioner, and will not pay an in surance company to take the risk. | On the other hand, it is predicted that l the small employers and farmers, hay ing the opportunity of leaving things | as they are, will not accept the act but prefer to be sued as at present. | They. however, must remember that written notice of taiS intention must .an-a