Cadzow Coal Co., Ltd v. Gaffney

Factual and Procedural Background

A miner (the Plaintiff) was injured during the course of his employment with Company A. The Plaintiff began working for Company A on a Friday and did not work the following Saturday. He then worked from Monday to Thursday of the subsequent week, sustaining injuries on the Thursday. The Plaintiff claimed compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1897 for injuries received while working for Company A. The case proceeded as an arbitration, with the arbitrator deciding that the Plaintiff’s earnings from the partial weeks of employment could be averaged to calculate his “average weekly earnings” for compensation purposes.

The key procedural question was whether the Plaintiff, having worked only parts of two separate weeks, was entitled to compensation under the Act, which required an assessment of average weekly earnings. The arbitrator awarded compensation based on averaging the earnings from the two weeks, and the matter was appealed to the Court for a legal opinion on entitlement under the statute.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether a workman who has worked only part of two calendar weeks is entitled to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1897.
2. Whether the calculation of “average weekly earnings” under the Act requires the workman to have worked two full weeks.
3. Whether the term “week” in the statute refers to a calendar week (Sunday to Saturday) or some other definition such as a colliery week.
4. Whether a workman who has been employed for only one week or less is excluded from the benefits of the Act.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Plaintiff was not entitled to compensation because he had not worked for two full weeks.
• It was established in precedent that a workman must have worked at least two weeks to claim compensation.
• If the calculation is by calendar weeks, the Plaintiff worked only one day in the first week, which could not constitute a fair week’s work.
• It would be impossible to estimate average weekly earnings without two full weeks of work.
• Even if the calculation used the colliery week, precedent showed that working only one day in each week was insufficient for compensation.

Respondent's Arguments

• The statute affirms the workman’s right to compensation and should not be narrowly construed to exclude partial weeks.
• The Court’s task is to estimate average weekly earnings, not to determine if two full weeks were worked.
• Precedent supports that two full weeks are not essential for calculating average weekly earnings.
• The averaging method is equitable since working fewer days in one week would reduce the average earnings.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court acknowledged the purpose of the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1897 to provide compensation to injured workers regardless of employer fault. The statute bases compensation on the worker’s average weekly earnings during the period of employment. The Court rejected the appellants’ argument that two full weeks of work are a prerequisite for compensation. Instead, it held that the average weekly earnings should be calculated from the actual earnings during the weeks in which the worker was employed, even if those weeks were partial.

The Court interpreted “week” in the statute as a calendar week (Sunday to Saturday), not a special employment week. The Plaintiff’s earnings for the single day in the first week and for the four days in the second week were combined and averaged to determine compensation. This method was seen as equitable to employers because the low earnings in the partial week reduce the average.

The Court reserved opinion on whether a worker employed for only a single week without spanning two weeks would be entitled to compensation but found that the Plaintiff’s employment over parts of two weeks met the statutory conditions. The reasoning emphasized fidelity to the statute’s language and purpose rather than strict adherence to precedent requiring two full weeks.

Holding and Implications

The Court held that the Plaintiff was entitled to compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1897 despite having worked only parts of two calendar weeks.

The Plaintiff’s average weekly earnings can be calculated by averaging the earnings from the partial weeks worked, and this forms a proper basis for compensation.

The decision affirms that full weeks of employment are not strictly necessary to claim compensation if the worker has earnings in parts of two weeks. The ruling clarifies the interpretation of “average weekly earnings” and the meaning of “week” within the statute, favoring a practical and equitable approach consistent with the statute’s remedial purpose. No new precedent excluding workers with partial weeks was established, and the Court reserved opinion on cases involving employment within only one week.