Working conditions in British Columbia before Workers Compensation
There have been numerous Royal Commissions which have examined the effectiveness of Workers Compensation. The commissions have attempted to explain working conditions prior to Workers Compensation legislation where British Columbia's workforce was largely occupied in fishing, logging, and mining industries. The Royal Commissions conclude that documented injuries are limited, with the exception of mining, and therefore little is known of working conditions before the Workers Compensation Act (WCA). One line from a Royal Commission document reads, "There are no sources to reveal nineteenth century workplace conditions in two other significant B.C. industries, agriculture and fishing". However, this argument ignores the documentation of injuries in early Workers Compensation documents from canneries. Although Workers Compensation documents do not provide a direct account of the working conditions before legislation the documents do provide incidents which occurred in the workplaces. More precisely, the injuries documented in Workers Compensation documents can be extrapolated as similar, if not identical injuries, to the period before Workers Compensation in 1917. For example, injuries in the fishing industry, controlled largely by canneries, included finger strain, muscle strains, cuts, infections, burns, and more.Workers Compensation Injury Reports, Aug 3, 1920, in "WCB", MS 15 box, North Pacific Cannery Archives, Port Edward, BC. Many of these injuries were preventable and happened before the introduction of the WCA and subsequent regulations. The preventability of injuries is evident in several Workers Compensation letters urging employers to follow new and existing safeguards. Employees were also aware of unsafe working conditions as litigation became the primary means of seeking some compensation. Employees believed the employers were responsible for compensating their inability to work. The employees often believed that since they were injured at work the injury and compensation was the companies' responsibility to pay. Further, employees comments often noted, "unsafe conditions, long hours, and unsanitary working conditions."Working conditions in the fishing industry
Before Workers Compensation Legislation
Lawsuits
Prior to the ''Workers Compensation Act'' compensation from employers was received primarily through litigation. However, some companies did provide some compensation, regarding injuries or death of employees, but it was often unsatisfactory.Workmen's Compensation Board News Bulletin, March, 1960, in "Safety", MS 2 box, North Pacific Cannery Archives, Port Edward, BC. In result, employees commonly would sue employers to cover loss of wages and medical bills. A Workers Compensation news-bulletin from 1960 titled, "What Led up to Worker's Compensation Legislation", presents three defenses used by employers involved in lawsuits with employees. The defenses were based on: # Fault of the Fellow Workmen # Assumption by workman of the ordinary risks of the job # Contributory Negligence on the part of the workman These defenses, in practice, led to employers winning the majority of cases and the employees were left without sufficient or any compensation. The common law made it far too easy for employers to avoid paying compensation. By the defense "Fault of the Fellow Workmen" the employer could not be liable if an employee could be found partially at fault. Similarly, the "Assumption by workman of the ordinary risks of the job" defense allowed employers to claim that there were certain risks which the employee accepted by taking the job, and therefore the employer(s) could not be held liable. Finally, the "Contributory Negligence on the part of the workman" defense allowed for conditions where if an employee could be found minimally at fault the employer would be found not liable. There was also a disinclination for fellow employees to witness for their fellow employee(s) under fear of repercussions from their employer. Understandably, such results, predominantly in the favour of employers, created unrest. Employees had low prospects in acquiring compensation from employers through litigation. However, as litigation was the only means of receiving compensation, it was still heavily attempted. By 1897 the ''Employers Liability Act'' was established attempting to resolve the increasing conflicts and lawsuits between employees and employers. However, the ''Employers Liability Act'' was very limited in its beneficiaries, to only people 21 years and older whom were either railroad workers or manual labourers. Nevertheless, the ''Act'' enabled the eligible to claim up to $2000, although later lowered to $1500. In general, the creation of the ''Employers Liability Act'' was beneficial yet it did not apply to a large portion of the workforce. For example, most cannery workers would be ineligible to use the ''Act'' and would therefore continue to use litigation as a means of attempting compensation. The ''Employers Liability Act'' did not solve the problems of employee unrest or busy courts. Employers also began to feel uneasy as British Columbia's economy was suffering and a single lawsuit could cause significant debts.Workers Compensation Acts
The Workers Compensation Act 1902
The next implementation after the ''Employers Liability Act'' ''1897'' was the ''1902'' ''Workmen's Compensation Act.'' This act was fundamentally better for employees as it enforced compensation for the injured worker(s) even if the worker was slightly at fault. More precisely, the ''1902'' ''Workmen's Compensation Act'' would allow the employee(s) to receive compensation unless they were overtly reckless. The new WCA allowed more workers to be eligible. The WCA now included miners, factory and construction workers. Further it allowed for arbiters in order to limit the large number of cases the courts had to work. Although more people could benefit from the 1902 WCA it still did not benefit loggers and a few other industries. Since the WCA still required either courts, or an arbiter, processing was still quite slow. In 1916 a document titled the "Pineo Report" suggested that British Columbia should follow the example of Ontario and implement an administration board. The report confirmed that industries should, predominantly, be held responsible for accidents. The report also suggested that efforts made towards securing compensation for employers should be shared in efforts to prevent workplace incidents. The report's suggestions were made necessary as the ''Workmen's Compensation Act,'' with the new option of arbitration, seemed ineffective in decreasing litigation. On the contrary, evidence suggests that after the 1902 WCA the courts became even busier.The Workers Compensation Act 1917
By 1917 another act was passed known as the ''Workers Compensation Act 1917'' responding to the concerns addressed by the "Pineo Report"''.'' Unsurprisingly, preventing workplace incidents and enabling compensation are values shared by WorkSafeBC today as were addressed by the "Pineo Report". By method of compromise the 1917 act included regulations for medical aid. The regulations allowed finances to be collected from employees at a fixed rate per day while the employers would cover any outstanding costs. In short, the WCA of 1917 set up the framework for which amendments would be made, resulting in the WorkSafeBC that exists today.References
External links
* {{Authority control British Columbia government departments and agencies Organizations based in British Columbia Richmond, British Columbia Workers' compensation Occupational safety and health organizations