Court Opinion

ID: 9516131
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 23:35:37.900984+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:38.641475
License: Public Domain

T. E. Brennan, J.
(dissenting). I dissent.
The problem of providing workmen’s compensation for migrant farm workers was considered by the Legislature in the general revision of 1969. 1969 PA 317.
Section 115 of that Act describes the categories of employers subject to the Act. That section is not quoted in full in the majority opinion.
It reads as follows:
"Sec. 115. This act shall apply to:
"(a) All private employers, other than agricultural employers, who regularly employ 3 or more employees at 1 time.
"(b) All private employers, other than agricultural employers, who regularly employ less than 3 employees if at least 1 of them has been regularly employed by the same employer for 35 or more hours per week for 13 weeks or longer during the preceding 52 weeks.
“(c) All public employers, irrespective of the number of persons employed.
"(d) All agricultural employers of 3 or more regular employees paid hourly wages or salaries, and not paid on a piecework basis, who are employed 35 or more hours per week by that same employer for 13 or more consecutive weeks during the preceding 52 weeks. Coverage shall apply only to such regularly employed employees. The average weekly wage for such an employee shall be deemed to be the. weeks worked in agricultural employment divided into the total wages which the employee has earned from all agricultural occupations during the 12 calendar months immediately preceding the injury, and no other definition pertaining to average weekly wage shall be applicable.
"(e) All agricultural employers of 1 or more employees who are employed 35 or more hours per week by that same employer for 5 or more consecutive weeks *678shall provide for such employees, in accordance with rules established by the director, medical and hospital coverage as set forth in section 315 for all personal injuries arising out of and in the course of employment suffered by such employees not otherwise covered by this act. The provision of such medical and hospital coverage shall not affect any rights of recovery that an employee would otherwise have against an agricultural employer and such right of recovery shall be subject to any defense the agricultural employer might otherwise have. Section 141 shall not apply to cases, other than medical and hospital coverages provided herein, arising under this subdivision nor shall it apply to actions brought against an agricultural employer who is not voluntarily or otherwise subject to this act. No person shall be considered an employee of an agricultural employer if the person is a spouse, child or other member of the employer’s family, as defined in subdivision (b) of section 353 residing in the home or on the premises of the agricultural employer.
"All other agricultural employers not included in subdivisions (d) and (e) shall be exempt from the provisions of this act.”
The categories established do not discriminate against migrant farm workers. Indeed, subsection 115(e) provides a special remedy for migrant farm workers which is not provided for non-agricultural workers.
It is obvious that the Legislature has attempted to draw a line between small farms (subsection 115[e]) and big farms (subsection 115[d]). Big farms are treated exactly like any other employer — agricultural or non-agricultural. Little farms, unlike little gas stations, little stores or casual residential employers, are required to carry medical insurance under § 315.
Thus, if I employ a handyman to work around my house for six weeks, I am not subject to the Workmen’s Compensation Act. (Section 118[2].) If a *679farmer puts on a hired hand for the same length of time, medical and hospital coverage must be provided. Where is the discrimination?