United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions >> Abram Coal Co. v. Southern [1903] UKHL 449 (29 June 1903)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1903/41SLR0449.html
Cite as: [1903] UKHL 449, 41 ScotLR 449

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]

SCOTTISH_SLR_House_of_Lords

Page: 449↓

House of Lords.

(On Appeal from the Court of Appeal in England.)

Monday, June 29, 1903.

(Before Lords Macnaghten, Shand, and Lindley.)

41 SLR 449

Abram Coal Company

v.

Southern.

Subject_Master and Servant — Workmen's Compensation Act 1897 (60 and 61 Vict c.37), First Schedule (1) ( a) — Earnings — Deductions from Wages.
Facts:

The word “earnings” in the Workmen's Compensation Act 1897 is used in a popular sense, and means the sum which a workman gets for his work when he comes to it properly equipped according to the general understanding and practice of his particular trade.

By agreement with a collier, his employer deducted from his weekly wages a sum for the check weigh fund, the sharpening of picks, and the maintenance of lamps, and the supply of oil thereto.

Held that in estimating the compensation due for an injury under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1897, the workmen's earnings were his whole wages without any deduction.

Headnote:

In an arbitration under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1897, brought before the County Court Judge of Lancashire at Wigan ( Bradbury), the widow of William Southern claimed compensation from the Abram Coal Company for the death of her husband, a collier, as the result of an accident in the course of his employment at one of the company's mines on 26th July 1901.

Southern's total earnings were stated to be £196, 15s. 8d., but it was agreed by the parties that this sum was not actually paid to him, but only the balance after deduction of £8, 11s. 6d. made under an agreement between him and his employers that deductions should be made from his weekly wages for the check weigh fund, the sharpening of picks, and the maintenance of lamps, and the supply of oil thereto.

The Coal Company maintained that in calculating the total earnings of Southern the £8, 11s. 6d. should be deducted from the £196, 15s. 8d.

On 3rd December 1901 the County Court Judge awarded the full amount claimed, refusing to make the deduction above-mentioned.

On 7th June 1902 the Court of appeal ( Collins, M.R., Matthew, and Cozens Hardy, L. JJ.) affirmed this decision.

The Abram Coal Company appealed.

At the conclusion of the appellant's argument their Lordships gave judgment.

Judgment:

Lord Macnaghten—I do not think that your Lordships need be troubled with the consideration of any questions of political economy or with the provisions of the Truck Act. The Truck Act was passed for a wholly different purpose, and it uses different expressions from those which we find in the statute which we have now to construe. The sole question which your Lordships have to consider is what is the meaning of the word “earnings” in the Workmen's Compensation Act 1897. There is no definition of that word, nor is there anything said about deductions. I think that the word “earnings” is used in the schedule not in the sense in which economical writers use it, but in a popular sense. It is to be observed that it is a rough measure; the object of the Act is to ascertain somewhat roughly what is the proper compensation to be made in a case of accident resulting in death. It is not an accurate measure at all; it is only a rough measure between two extreme limits—the limit of £150 and the limit of £300. In my opinion the word is used in a popular sense—in the vernacular in fact. I think that if a miner were asked what his earnings were, he would name the whole sum which he received without any deduction. He might add that he had to pay so much for his lamp-oil and his pick-sharpening, and so on, but I think that the word is used to cover the whole sum of his earnings. I do not think that the point can be put very much better than it is put in the decision of the County Court Judge—“I would add that a lamp and picks in proper working order seem to be looked upon in the trade as being part of the necessary equipment of a miner, to be provided by him or at his cost, without them he would not be considered to be a properly equipped miner, and I should say the word “earnings” means the sum the

Page: 450↓

workman gets for his work when he comes to it properly equipped according to the general understanding and practice in that particular trade.” That being so, I move your Lordships that the appeal be dismissed.”

Lord Shand—I am of the same opinion. The “earnings” are made the standard of compensation in the schedule to the Act, but there is no definition, economic or general, of the term of which the Courts are to ascertain the general sense. A man would say that his earnings were what he got as the result of his labour. I entirely accept the language of the County Court Judge. It may be that a man has to provide himself with certain necessaries for his work, but that makes no difference. I also concur with Lord Macnaghten's observations on the Truck Act, and with what Cozens-Hardy, L.J., said with respect to that Act.

Lord Lindley—I am of the same opinion, and I have very little to add. I think that these payments, some of which are compulsory while others are not, are all really deductions from the earnings. With regard to the use of the word “earnings” in the schedule, I think it is a rough way of getting at the sum to be paid for compensation. As regards the Truck Act there is no analogy between it and the Act under consideration. The object of the Truck Act is very simple, It is to prevent an employer from giving or professing to give with one hand wages which he takes away with the other. That is the object, and accordingly all kinds of deductions from wages are forbidden. The decisions upon it are of no use on the present occasion.

Judgment appealed against affirmed and appeal dismissed.

Agent for Claimant and Respondent—Watkins, Son, & Fletcher, Atherton.

Counsel:

Counsel for Appellants— Haldane, K.C.— F. L. Smith. Agents— Rowcliffes, Rawle, & Co., for Peace & Ellis, Wigan.
1903