Montana labor news., 1938-06-16
OPEN FORUM
Attorney (oYIe Replies
To Compensation Essay

20 @f@0%ANtAA1 @'EC ~ W.
dated June 2, 1888, was captioned in
heavy type, Compensation Law
Must Be Amended" l read the par
ticulars of the article but it is mild
when compared with the essential
amendments necessary to preserve
the dignity that the working class
is entitled to.
First. The Workmen's Compen-
sation Act of Montana should be
amended so as to provide a board
of three members, elected by the
people for a term of six years, and
so arranged that a member shall be
elected to the board every two years
in place of a retiring member. The
board should be composed of a law
yer, duly admitted to practice his
profession in Montana, a doctor, duly
licensed to practice his profession in
Montana, and a layman, and all
three members should hear every
case SO that a decision in every case
can be rendered within five days
after the hearing.
Under the present law, the board
is composed of three members, being
the Commissioner of Agriculture,
Labor and Industry, the State Audi
tor, and nj member appointed by
the Governor. The member ap-
pointed by the Governor is chair
man of the board, and that member
hears all the cases but cannot make
a decision after hearing the case I'M
til the stenographer prepares a type
written record which is submitted
to the other two members for con-
%sideration. With numerous cases at
hand it sometimes requires a great
deal Of work in getting out tran
scripts in each of the cases and long
delays 7 frequent, even though the
work is most proficient and most
eXpeditiously done. The other two
members of the board have other
official work which continuously oc-
cupies their time and they cannot
judge fairly the cause of the litigant
because they have no means of see
ing the litigant or the witnesses for
or against him and judging of their
demeanor while on the stand. Furth-
ermore, during the long delays in
the preparation Of transcripts and
the consideration given by the mem
bers who did not hear the case, the
workman sits idly by usually re-
ceiving no compensation during the
court proceedings.
Second: Plans Number One
(~whereby the employer deals direct
ly with the workman) and Number
Two (whereby the employer insures
his liability with an insurance com
pany) should be abolished. The pro-
visions of the act should apply to but
one plan and that is the State Plan
which is now Plan Number Three
(whereby each employer in the state
pays, according to the hazardous
business that he is in, a certain per-
centage, fixed by the board, on his
monthly payroll). I am aware Of
many cases in this county whereby
the employer operating under Plan
Number One cuts off the compensa-
ton of a workman in order to bring
him to time on a cash settlement
basis, instead of allowing the en-
ployee to draw monthly compensa-
ton until he is able to return to his
former occupation or other occupa-
tons Of like character.
Third; In the event the employ
er fails or refuses or violates the
provisions of a safety statute or a
safety rule promulgated by the
board, the workman should have an
action against his employer over and
above his compensation money for
such violation; otherwise, to promul-
gate a safety statute or safety rule
is merely an idle act without any
potency whatsoever to the work
man. For the violation of a safety
statute or safety rule, the employer
should be penalized to one injured
as a proXimate result of such viola
ton to the extent of at least five
thousand dollars and ten thousand
dollars to one killed thereby.
Fourth: An award of the board
should be made within five days aft
er the trial of the case and not within
thirty days as now provided by
statute. With the members elected,
as I have heretofore stated, such
award or decision could be made
within three hours after the trial
and in the most difficult character
of cases within at least five days.
Under the present law this would be
impossible.
Fifth: A petition for ~rehearing
of the aggrieved party should be
made within five days after notice
of the decision or award, and not
within twenty days as now provided
by statute.
Sixth: An appeal by either party
to the District Court of the county
wherein the accident occurred should
be filed within ten days after notice
and not within thirty days as now
provided by statute.
Seventh: An appeal to the SUI
preme Court of the State of Montana
should be filed within sixty days
after the judgment or decision of
the District Court has been made,
and not within six months as now