Saturday, May 26, 2012
Review into bullying in the workplace
Julia Gillard
The Review will be undertaken by the House Standing Committee on Education and Employment, comprising members from both major parties. It will consult extensively with the community and will report by 30 November 2012.
The Australian Government is already working with state and territory governments, as well as employer and employee representatives, to harmonise work health and safety laws in Australia. Safe Work Australia is working on a Code of Practice to provide guidance to workplaces on how to prevent bullying becoming a health and safety risk in the workplace.
In addition, some states have passed legislation to deal with bullying – such as Brodie’s law.
The review will complement the work being undertaken by Safe Work Australia and State and Territory governments.
posted Saturday, 26 May 2012
The Prime Minister and the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations today announced a review into bullying in the workplace.
The aim of the review is to look at the nature, causes and extent of workplace bullying and consider proposals to prevent bullying cultures developing in the workplace and help individuals who have been affected by bullying to return to work.
Workplace bullying can cause serious psychological injury and great distress to victims and their families. It also affects the broader community, causing lost work time, reducing productivity and contributing to increased workers’ compensation claims and associated costs.
The Productivity Commission estimates the total cost of workplace bullying in Australia at between $6 billion and $36 billion annually.
The terms of reference of the review will focus on:
The Prime Minister and the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations today announced a review into bullying in the workplace.
The aim of the review is to look at the nature, causes and extent of workplace bullying and consider proposals to prevent bullying cultures developing in the workplace and help individuals who have been affected by bullying to return to work.
Workplace bullying can cause serious psychological injury and great distress to victims and their families. It also affects the broader community, causing lost work time, reducing productivity and contributing to increased workers’ compensation claims and associated costs.
The Productivity Commission estimates the total cost of workplace bullying in Australia at between $6 billion and $36 billion annually.
The terms of reference of the review will focus on:
- the prevalence of workplace bullying in Australia and the experience of victims of workplace bullying;
- the role of workplace cultures in preventing and responding to bullying and the capacity for workplace-based policies and procedures to influence the incidence and seriousness of workplace bullying;
- the adequacy of existing education and support services to prevent and respond to workplace bullying and whether there are further opportunities to raise awareness of workplace bullying such as community forums;
- whether the scope to improve coordination between governments, regulators, health service providers and other stakeholders to address and prevent workplace bullying;
- whether there are regulatory, administrative or cross-jurisdictional and international legal and policy gaps that should be addressed in the interests of enhancing protection against and providing an early response to workplace bullying, including through appropriate complaint mechanisms;
- whether the existing regulatory frameworks provide a sufficient deterrent against workplace bullying; the most appropriate ways of ensuring bullying culture or behaviours are not transferred from one workplace to another; and possible improvements to the national evidence base on workplace bullying.
The Review will be undertaken by the House Standing Committee on Education and Employment, comprising members from both major parties. It will consult extensively with the community and will report by 30 November 2012.
The Australian Government is already working with state and territory governments, as well as employer and employee representatives, to harmonise work health and safety laws in Australia. Safe Work Australia is working on a Code of Practice to provide guidance to workplaces on how to prevent bullying becoming a health and safety risk in the workplace.
In addition, some states have passed legislation to deal with bullying – such as Brodie’s law.
The review will complement the work being undertaken by Safe Work Australia and State and Territory governments.
Friday, May 25, 2012
WorkCover's liabilities exaggerated to slash hurt workers' benefits: unions - The Kennett Trap
The Kennett Trap
The state government has been accused of exaggerating WorkCover's liabilities to create a smokescreen for slashing benefits to injured workers.
Unions NSW today told a parliamentary inquiry into the NSW Workers Compensation Scheme that the government has been diverting attention away from the real reasons behind the scheme's $4 billion deficit.
Unions NSW Secretary Mark Lennon said WorkCover's unfunded liability had been "wildly exaggerated to create a sense of crisis, so that the government can cut payments to sick and injured workers, in the name of allegedly helping business".
"The $4 billion figure being bandied about is based on a worst-case scenario," he said.
"While some reform of the scheme is necessary, the real savings need to come from claims agents and administrative costs, which are the real drivers of unfunded liabilities.
"Sick and injured workers must not have their entitlements cut because of a blow-out in administrative costs."
Unions NSW's submission to the parliamentary inquiry says the government has exaggerated the risk margin of the WorkCover scheme, which is publicly underwritten.
Insurance premiums for employers have fallen by 33 per cent since 2005, removing $1 billion from the scheme, despite an increase in the rate of serious workplace injuries.
While the government has said NSW should have lower premiums to match those in Victoria, it has failed to acknowledge that NSW has a much higher rate of serious injuries than Victoria.
Private insurers have also increased the amount they claim from the scheme at a rate that is way above inflation.
An issues paper released by Finance Minister Greg Pearce outlines possible measures for cutting benefits to injured workers and removing journey claims.
Unions NSW says the paper fails to discuss the WorkCover Board's management of the scheme or to consider the performance of WorkCover's claims agents.
It also says the government has been silent on how it will help workers return to work, other than by cutting their benefits.
"When WorkCover schemes encounter financial difficulties, politicians find it expedient to reduce scheme costs by targeting the entitlements of injured workers rather than tackle the underlying causes," the submission says.
"The reluctance of governments to scrutinise the actions of scheme administrators, their claims agents and employers, especially in view of the pivotal roles they play in the functioning and financial performance of workers' compensation schemes, is a deep-seated, perennial problem and a major obstacle to genuine reform."
The Australian Manufacturing Workers Union today warned the state government it would fight any unfair cuts in benefits for injured workers.
"Premier [Barry] O'Farrell and the employer lobby are on notice that if they buddy up to slash the entitlements of injured manufacturing workers and bereaved families, we will take them on," NSW secretary Tim Ayres said.
"Manufacturing is the most dangerous industry in NSW by far, generating the highest number of serious workplace injuries. We had a tragic fatality in westernSydney just yesterday."
The Australian Manufacturing Workers Union is looking into top-up insurance to cover any shortfall in injured workers' entitlements if benefits under the workers compensation scheme are cut.
Mr Ayres said the AMWU said the insurance cover might be more expensive than the premium reductions the government had delivered to manufacturing businesses.
Sunday, May 20, 2012
780 Degrees of Separation - The Hallam & Kennett Lies
The resilience of the profession is being tested by the state governments disgraceful plans to scrap recourse to common law for seriously injured workers. However, the so-called reasons for the changes are worse. Government MPs have allowed themselves to be conned, and that is putting the matter at its mildest. They have been duped by the Victorian WorkCover Authoritys claims that costs are rocketing. Wildly exaggerated figures have been bandied about to scare the public who should, instead, be afraid of losing their rights to court action.
On 7 October, the day the Minister for Finance Roger Hallam announced the changes, his news release talked of "the 780 percent increase in common law costs". The dupe is these figures did not include the old WorkCare scheme. The actual increase was 75 percent. Moreover, the previous scheme did not include compensation for future economic loss, so like was not compared with like.
This was but a part of the scam. The legal costs were simply a bullet aimed at lawyers. An obliging Herald Sun reporter uncritically accepted figures for legal costs of WorkCover to get a headline of "Million-dollar lawyers". It hardly needs adding that this report said: "Soaring legal costs are behind the Governments decision yesterday to overhaul the WorkCover compensation scheme by abolishing common law claims . . ." But it does need saying again that the figures are wildly exaggerated since, as even a basic inquiry by the paper would have established, the amounts "paid to 26 firms of solicitors" included disbursements and other costs. So the figure of $2 million to each of ten firms in the past year must be cut by at least 40 percent.
Abolition of common law will produce little or no cost saving. This is because of the commensurately increased weekly payments and statutory lump sums, as shown in a letter from the consultants Trowbridge to the VWA. Common law simply brings forward payments of compensation that would be made over many years. It is not inherently more expensive than weekly payments and statutory lump sums.
The real cause of the rise in the cost of the scheme is a greater than expected increase in the number of long-term claimants. Even the schemes actuaries do not blame common law, but describe its ameliorating effect. For example, a 50 percent increase in common law claims means a 50 percent decrease in long-term claimants.
But even if there were some possible savings by the abolition of common law, this would be lost by long-termadministration and handling costs to insurers and employers, such as medical examinations at $500 a time and file reviews that are all but avoided by the "once and for all" nature of common law. In this context, it is important that I point out that legal costs associated with common law in 1996-97 were $33.5 million, not $100-110 million as has been claimed
In all the early drafts of the Legal Practice Bill, the Attorney-General intended that professional indemnity insurance should be compulsory and that all firms should be required to insure through the Solicitors Liability Committee. However, Cabinet insisted on a change in the insurance arrangements and private insurers were to be allowed into the market. The Attorney obtained approval for a report from KPMG. KPMG barely discussed the issue with the Institute. The report came down in favour of the introduction of private insurers.
At the same time, the SLC indicated to the Institute that if competition was to be allowed it would not compete. Further, it expressed its belief that nothing would change the Cabinets mind and that it was certain that private insurers would be permitted.In these circumstances, faced with the certainty that this was going to happen, the Institute sought to do the best that it could for its members, notwithstanding the Institutes view that the SLC had done a very good job for Victorian solicitors. We started exploring various avenues within the private market. We have thus reached the situation of saying: "If it is to happen, let it happen now." This is based substantially on our view that the market is at an historically "soft" level at present and that premiums will be reduced more this year than in any other year. If our members are going to be inconvenienced by a new scheme, with changes of insurer and all that brings, let them at least get the benefits of substantially cheaper premiums. There are a number of problems associated with the changes, but the representatives of the private market who have addressed the Institute are convinced that they can be overcome.
It is entirely on the basis of these assurances that the Institute has adopted the position that it has of urging the government not to postpone the introduction of the private market.
Geoff Provis
Past President, Law Institute of Victoria
Nov 1997
On 7 October, the day the Minister for Finance Roger Hallam announced the changes, his news release talked of "the 780 percent increase in common law costs". The dupe is these figures did not include the old WorkCare scheme. The actual increase was 75 percent. Moreover, the previous scheme did not include compensation for future economic loss, so like was not compared with like.
This was but a part of the scam. The legal costs were simply a bullet aimed at lawyers. An obliging Herald Sun reporter uncritically accepted figures for legal costs of WorkCover to get a headline of "Million-dollar lawyers". It hardly needs adding that this report said: "Soaring legal costs are behind the Governments decision yesterday to overhaul the WorkCover compensation scheme by abolishing common law claims . . ." But it does need saying again that the figures are wildly exaggerated since, as even a basic inquiry by the paper would have established, the amounts "paid to 26 firms of solicitors" included disbursements and other costs. So the figure of $2 million to each of ten firms in the past year must be cut by at least 40 percent.
Abolition of common law will produce little or no cost saving. This is because of the commensurately increased weekly payments and statutory lump sums, as shown in a letter from the consultants Trowbridge to the VWA. Common law simply brings forward payments of compensation that would be made over many years. It is not inherently more expensive than weekly payments and statutory lump sums.
The real cause of the rise in the cost of the scheme is a greater than expected increase in the number of long-term claimants. Even the schemes actuaries do not blame common law, but describe its ameliorating effect. For example, a 50 percent increase in common law claims means a 50 percent decrease in long-term claimants.
But even if there were some possible savings by the abolition of common law, this would be lost by long-termadministration and handling costs to insurers and employers, such as medical examinations at $500 a time and file reviews that are all but avoided by the "once and for all" nature of common law. In this context, it is important that I point out that legal costs associated with common law in 1996-97 were $33.5 million, not $100-110 million as has been claimed
In all the early drafts of the Legal Practice Bill, the Attorney-General intended that professional indemnity insurance should be compulsory and that all firms should be required to insure through the Solicitors Liability Committee. However, Cabinet insisted on a change in the insurance arrangements and private insurers were to be allowed into the market. The Attorney obtained approval for a report from KPMG. KPMG barely discussed the issue with the Institute. The report came down in favour of the introduction of private insurers.
At the same time, the SLC indicated to the Institute that if competition was to be allowed it would not compete. Further, it expressed its belief that nothing would change the Cabinets mind and that it was certain that private insurers would be permitted.In these circumstances, faced with the certainty that this was going to happen, the Institute sought to do the best that it could for its members, notwithstanding the Institutes view that the SLC had done a very good job for Victorian solicitors. We started exploring various avenues within the private market. We have thus reached the situation of saying: "If it is to happen, let it happen now." This is based substantially on our view that the market is at an historically "soft" level at present and that premiums will be reduced more this year than in any other year. If our members are going to be inconvenienced by a new scheme, with changes of insurer and all that brings, let them at least get the benefits of substantially cheaper premiums. There are a number of problems associated with the changes, but the representatives of the private market who have addressed the Institute are convinced that they can be overcome.
It is entirely on the basis of these assurances that the Institute has adopted the position that it has of urging the government not to postpone the introduction of the private market.
Geoff Provis
Past President, Law Institute of Victoria
Nov 1997
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Why Were Common Law Claims Abolished in Victoria?
1992 – 1997 WorkCover Changes
From 1992 and leading up to the abolishment of common law in 1997 some of the major Kennett government changes included:
• A requirement that employment be a significant contributing factor
• The exclusion of some categories of stress claims
• The exclusion of injuries which occur on the way to or from work
• The introduction of the concept of notional earnings which is the amount actually earned or the amount that WorkCover believes a worker could be earning in suitable employment even if no such job exists
• The introduction of the concept of serious injury
• Significant changes to the weekly payments structure
• Termination of payment of routine or non-essential medical expenses 12 months after weekly payments cease
• Employer control of injured workers access to rehabilitation services
• Removal of ‘mental disorder’ as a basis for lump sum compensation
• Abolishing the specialist Accident Compensation Tribunal (including sacking the
Judges), and abolishing the WorkCare Complaints Commissioner
• Introducing impairment thresholds for hearing loss compensation
• Increasing the role and power of Medical Panels including redefining medical questions to include questions of fact and removing judicial review of decisions
Whilst the government reintroduced rights to claim pecuniary damages in 1992, it introduced the threshold requirement of ‘serious injury’ by way of 30% whole person impairment based on AMA Guides, or satisfaction of a ‘narrative’ test for access to common law, and placed monetary thresholds on both heads of damages.
A particular aim being to discourage common law claims for small monetary amounts.
Between 1992 and 1997 the government further tightened access to common law entitlements by removing secondary psychological injury from the assessment of impairment, and the imposition of cost penalties including requiring the plaintiff to pay her/his own costs if damages were assessed but could not be awarded.
The Kennett government also sought to substantially reduce the various statutory entitlements including weekly payments, and lump sum compensation for permanent impairment.
Accordingly the abolition of common law rights in 1997 can be seen as a continuation of the Kennett government’s determination to restrict access to, and the benefits available under, the WorkCover scheme.
It should be noted however that following the majority of changes carried out in 1992 the WorkCover scheme had settled into a relatively stable scheme.
Up until November 1997 there had been a limited assault on common law, primarily tightening access. The fact that the Kennett government moved to abolish common law rights after five years in office was curious.
Partly the answer lies in the process of change begun in 1992 and carried out up until 1997. But the major reason I suggest, lies in a confluence of factors merging in late 1997 that provided the political impetus to abolish common law.
In my view the Kennett government changes in 1997 were driven by a confluence of at least three factors, namely:
• A desire for a significant levy reduction couched in the economic rhetoric of employer associations (who portrayed WorkCover premiums as an impost on profitability and jobs), and support for this within government
• the remnants of support for the 1960’s & 1970’s philosophical opposition to common law genuinely held by senior policy makers within Treasury and the VWA and shared by some sections of the labour movement
• And the chronic inability of the Victorian WorkCover Authority to in particular manage the existing common law claim process.
The Economic Rhetoric
Employers groups and associations vigorously pursued the line that workers’ compensation premiums were a crucial component of the economic viability of the state. I am sure that you have experienced the same arguments here.
Without a shred of objective evidence every percentage point up or down in premium rates is claimed to represent thousands of jobs lost or gained to other states. Also, common law was portrayed as anti-rehabilitative, as it, rather than the fact of negligent caused injury, was seen as the destroyer of the employment relationship.
Clearly the employer groups’ eyes were firmly fixed on a levy reduction. It is interesting to contrast the position of twenty five of the twenty six self-insurers in Victoria at this time who opposed the abolition of common law.
They were large corporations employing substantial numbers of Victorians who were just as interested in the issue of business costs, but as self-insurers would have no benefit from a levy reduction.
I would suggest that their support for the retention of common law was not an act of altruism per se, but more a recognition that access to common law was an important component of the compensation ‘tools’ necessary to effectively manage their industrial injury portfolios. As well the self-insurers found no impediment in common law to effective rehabilitation.
The Kennett government threw their support behind the employer association claims with a crude and essentially dishonest use of financial statistics.
In October 1997, shortly before abolishing common law rights for seriously injured Victorian workers the then Minister for Finance (and responsible for the WorkCover scheme), Roger Hallam, issued a press release which provided reasons for the abolition of common law that essentially relied on financial issues, and notions of "more equitable and fairer" treatment for injured workers.
Hallam claimed that common law claims constituted 20% of WorkCover’s liabilities, yet less than 3% of injured workers received common law settlements. He also claimed that lawyers were receiving $100 million a year from WorkCover and that this money would be better off going to injured workers.
Given the continual changes to the compensation scheme since 1985, and in particular those applying to the operation of common law, it has been almost impossible to gather sound and objectively based statistical information, which can be used in any meaningful way to inform policy choice.
Not only are there ‘lies, damn lies, and (WorkCover)statistics’, but Hallam’s use of them in this way represented an attempt by the Kennett government to portray criticism as merely an esoteric debate between the government and ‘greedy lawyers’ about money, not principle.
The figures utilised by the government drew on an artificial hump of claims created by its own amendments in 1992, and then plotted a the growth of claims from a zero base in 1992! What was a natural and expected statistical phenomenon was portrayed as an alarming and uncontrolled exponential growth in these claims.
Abolition of common law was portrayed as cost neutral and the proposal as merely removing money from the pockets of lawyers to return to injured workers. Kennett & the ‘Historic Ambivalence’
In my view Kennett, as the consummate political animal, sensed some ambivalence to common law in sections of the trade union movement and the ALP. His judgment about such ambivalence was not misplaced. I recall a conversation in mid-1997 with a senior member of the then state ALP opposition (and now senior cabinet member of the current government).
The Kennett government was in the process of laying the political groundwork for the abolition of common law in November 1997. Labour lawyers were encouraging debate about the issue in the broader labour movement. In the discussion I raised concerns about the impending abolition of common law only to be told that there "were no votes in WorkCover"!.
Thereafter I, amongst others resolved to ensure that there were votes in WorkCover. Of course this was largely achieved by a well orchestrated campaign conducted by plaintiff law firms, the trade union movement, legal bodies, injured workers, and other groups which was comprehended and supported by the wider community.
In 1997 Kennett sought to exploit the ambivalence of some sections of the labour movement to argue that notion of ‘fault’ based compensation could finally be put to the sword, and replaced with the protective shield of fair and equitable statutory lump sum compensation for permanent impairment together with other entitlements.
In this I suggest he was supported by well intentioned senior policy makers within the bureaucracy who were convinced of the need to remove the vagaries of common law from the compensation system following the critique developed during the expansion of the welfare state.
Paul Mulvaney
Solicitor
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
The AMA Guides explained.
| The AMA Guides |
Under the WorkCover legislation physical injuries must be assessed in accordance with the fourth edition of The American Medical Association Guides For The Evaluation Of Permanent Impairment. Although these Guides are now in their six edition, the WorkCover legislation requires the fourth edition to be used. The Guides have been modified by the legislation which removes the pain chapter. The Guides have been the subject of significant criticism because they provide relatively depressed impairment assessments for musculoskeletal injuries particularly spinal injuries. Indeed, there are good grounds for believing that the scores of the most common industrial injuries were deliberately lowered when the Guides were being developed in America. Nonetheless, significant impairment scores can be obtained under these Guides from the aggregation of all the effects of injury. The Guides are highly complex and can provide markedly fluctuating impairment assessments when the same claimant is assessed by medical practitioners. These fluctuations, in large measure, are due to the discretion that is provided to medical examiners in respect of choosing the appropriate methodology for some assessments, particularly involving limb function.
The psychological guides
Under the WorkCover legislation a psychological impairment must be assessed in accordance with the Medical Panel Guides for the Evaluation of Psychiatric Impairment which was developed by psychiatric members of the Medical Panel Victoria. The impairment assessment methods consider a number of levels of psychiatric or psychological functioning including the following:
- Intelligence - (capacity for understanding).
- Thinking - (the ability to form or conceive in the mind).
- Perception - (the brain's interpretation of internal and external stimuli).
- Judgement - (ability to assess a given situation and act accordingly).
- Mood - (emotional tone underlying all behaviours).
- Behaviour - (behaviour which is disruptive, distressing or aggressive).
In order to be eligible for an impairment payment it is necessary to obtain an impairment score of 30% 'primary' psychiatric impairment. A primary psychiatric impairment can be combined with a physical impairment for the purposes of reaching the 30% threshold for common law damages claims.
The physical guides
Physical injuries must be assessed in accordance with The American Medical Association Guides For The Evaluation Of Permanent Impairment. Although these Guides are now in their 6th edition, the WorkCover legislation requires the 4th edition to be used. The Guides have been modified by the legislation which removes the pain chapter. The Guides have been heavily criticised because they provide relatively low impairment assessments for musculoskeletal injuries particularly spinal injuries. It appears that the most common industrial injuries were deliberately lowered when the Guides were being developed in America. Nonetheless, significant impairment scores can be obtained under these Guides from combining all the effects of injury. The Guides are highly complex and can provide markedly fluctuating impairment assessments when the same claimant is assessed by medical practitioners. These fluctuations, in large measure, are due to the discretion that is provided to medical examiners in respect of choosing the appropriate methodology for some assessments, particularly involving limb function.
The infectious diseases guides under WorkCover
The American Medical Association Guides For the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (fourth edition) provides very poor assessment levels for the full effects of some industrial diseases. The diseases most affected were conditions such as Q fever, leptosporosis and some other infectious conditions. The American Guides were unsatisfactory as they focused on the clinical evidence of injury rather than the more subtle effects of an infective condition. A working party comprised specialists, lawyers, unions and employers groups developed a much clearer alternative guide. Commonly, a person who has contracted Q fever can suffer severe lethargy, sleep disturbance and disrupted cerebral functioning as a result of post Q fever syndrome. This improved guide enables a claimant to choose between the impairment score under the American Guides or their score under this alternative guide. This alternative guide enables measurements of any restriction of a claimant's ability to undertake activities of daily living. It will usually, though not all ways, result in a higher impairment score than the American Guide.
The Industrial Asthma Guidelines under WorkCover
Initially, the American Guides were used for the assessment of industrial asthma. These guides were highly unsatisfactory because they focused mainly on lung function tests and failed to take account of whether or not a claimant was taking medication to improve lung function and the effect of the condition on the activities of daily living. There was concern that in order to demonstrate the proper level of impairment, a claimant would have to stop taking medication that time of assessment which could be highly dangerous. A special guide for the assessment of industrial asthma was developed by a working party set up by the WorkCover Authority containing employers, union representatives, lawyers and medical specialists, which resulted in a much fairer assessment method. For example, if a claimant had good lung function, solely because of their adherence to a medication regime, the medical assessors can now give a reasonable impairment score on the basis of their medication history.
Source: http://workforcelegal.com.au/pages/about-us.html
Monday, May 14, 2012
Flight Centre bullying case in Federal Court
A WHISTLEBLOWER who lost his career after standing up for a bullied co-worker at one of Australia's biggest travel agencies has filed Federal Court action.
Richard Barnes was a high-performing assistant manager at Flight Centre company Student Flights when he became concerned another employee was being severely bullied by store manager Kelly Gallasch.
The case centres on claims Ms Gallasch made an employee wear a boob apron (an apron with fake breasts) to a work awards night.
She allegedly told her "no wonder your husband left you" and told other workers the worker was "useless" and "stinks".
Mr Barnes made several complaints about Ms Gallasch's behaviour at the Frankston store but alleges Flight Centre failed to take action.
He is also claiming Ms Gallasch then targeted him as a result of his complaints about her.
Maurice Blackburn Lawyers on Monday filed the action in the Federal Court in Melbourne on Mr Barnes' behalf.
The firm's employment law principal Josh Bornstein said the company's response was unacceptable.
"Our client blew the whistle on extreme bullying behaviour at Flight Centre and as a result, was victimised, demoted and ultimately lost his career with the company," he said.
"The fact that a company which has won awards for being an excellent employer has tried to sweep this under the rug, ignoring obscene and belittling bullying in its own ranks and then turning on those that try to expose it, reflects an unacceptable work attitude."
Flight Centre Limited (FCL) says it will "vigorously defend" the case.
"The company considers it acted appropriately and denies various allegations that have been made against it," it said in a statement.
FCL said it investigated and acted against several people when the complaint was received last year, including complaints made against Mr Barnes.
It said it takes such allegations seriously, has measures in place to prevent and discipline such behaviour, and has a whistleblower's facility staff can use to report alleged wrongdoing.
The case was lodged in January at Fair Work Australia but the parties were unable to reach resolution.
The latest action was filed under the Fair Work Act's adverse action provisions, which protect whistleblowers from victimisation and retribution.
Mr Bornstein said national workplace bullying laws are needed because no law directly addresses workplace bullying and makes it illegal.
Richard Barnes was a high-performing assistant manager at Flight Centre company Student Flights when he became concerned another employee was being severely bullied by store manager Kelly Gallasch.
The case centres on claims Ms Gallasch made an employee wear a boob apron (an apron with fake breasts) to a work awards night.
She allegedly told her "no wonder your husband left you" and told other workers the worker was "useless" and "stinks".
Mr Barnes made several complaints about Ms Gallasch's behaviour at the Frankston store but alleges Flight Centre failed to take action.
He is also claiming Ms Gallasch then targeted him as a result of his complaints about her.
Maurice Blackburn Lawyers on Monday filed the action in the Federal Court in Melbourne on Mr Barnes' behalf.
The firm's employment law principal Josh Bornstein said the company's response was unacceptable.
"Our client blew the whistle on extreme bullying behaviour at Flight Centre and as a result, was victimised, demoted and ultimately lost his career with the company," he said.
"The fact that a company which has won awards for being an excellent employer has tried to sweep this under the rug, ignoring obscene and belittling bullying in its own ranks and then turning on those that try to expose it, reflects an unacceptable work attitude."
Flight Centre Limited (FCL) says it will "vigorously defend" the case.
"The company considers it acted appropriately and denies various allegations that have been made against it," it said in a statement.
FCL said it investigated and acted against several people when the complaint was received last year, including complaints made against Mr Barnes.
It said it takes such allegations seriously, has measures in place to prevent and discipline such behaviour, and has a whistleblower's facility staff can use to report alleged wrongdoing.
The case was lodged in January at Fair Work Australia but the parties were unable to reach resolution.
The latest action was filed under the Fair Work Act's adverse action provisions, which protect whistleblowers from victimisation and retribution.
Mr Bornstein said national workplace bullying laws are needed because no law directly addresses workplace bullying and makes it illegal.
Sunday, May 13, 2012
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
Vic man dead after workplace accident
A truck driver has been killed after being crushed between two lifts while unloading stock in Melbourne's northern suburbs.
The 37-year-old Bayswater truck driver was delivering two pieces of equipment to a work site car park when he was crushed between a scissor lift and a fork lift, WorkSafe Victoria spokeswoman Rosanna Bonaccurso said.
Emergency services arrived at the Preston site at 6.15am (AEST) on Wednesday and found the man dead.
He was believed to be on the scissor lift when the accident happened.
"How he was crushed will form part of our investigation," Ms Bonaccurso said.
The man was found by another worker who is being treated in hospital for shock.
Ms Bonaccurso said the car park is part of a planned home improvement centre set to open soon.
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8460546/vic-man-dead-after-workplace-accident
Emergency services arrived at the Preston site at 6.15am (AEST) on Wednesday and found the man dead.
He was believed to be on the scissor lift when the accident happened.
"How he was crushed will form part of our investigation," Ms Bonaccurso said.
The man was found by another worker who is being treated in hospital for shock.
Ms Bonaccurso said the car park is part of a planned home improvement centre set to open soon.
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8460546/vic-man-dead-after-workplace-accident
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Vic WorkCover premiums cut welcomed
The Victorian government has delivered a pragmatic budget while a reduction in WorkCover premiums will help industry, the Australian Industry Group says.
Ai Group Victorian director Tim Piper said the budget treads the fine line between supporting growth but without undermining the state's Triple A credit rating.
Mr Piper said he was pleased with a three per cent cut in WorkCover premiums.
"The Victorian government has managed to pull a rabbit out of a hat as well as keep a lid in some areas," he told journalists.
However, Mr Piper said he wanted to see money invested in infrastructure to be delivered into the local community, and further investment in manufacturing.
The budget is a boost for business, the state's chamber of commerce and industry says.
VECCI industry policy manager Steven Wojtkiw said the budget would successfully trim the government's internal spending, and boost business in the state through major infrastructure projects such as the East West Link, which earned $15 million for a business case study.
The budget would also reduce Victorian employers' costs by cutting WorkCover premiums by three per cent, Mr Wojtkiw said.
"This budget is a plus for business," he told reporters.
Victorian Automobile Chamber of Commerce spokesman David Russell said the budget will increase consumer and business confidence which had been at a low ebb.
"Small business owners are likely to regard this budget as responsible and balanced and therefore they hope it will improve consumer and business confidence," he told reporters.
Mr Russell said he appreciated the cut in WorkCover premiums, however small, and welcomed spending on small business programs.
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8460222/vic-workcover-premiums-cut-welcomed
Ai Group Victorian director Tim Piper said the budget treads the fine line between supporting growth but without undermining the state's Triple A credit rating.
Mr Piper said he was pleased with a three per cent cut in WorkCover premiums.
"The Victorian government has managed to pull a rabbit out of a hat as well as keep a lid in some areas," he told journalists.
However, Mr Piper said he wanted to see money invested in infrastructure to be delivered into the local community, and further investment in manufacturing.
The budget is a boost for business, the state's chamber of commerce and industry says.
VECCI industry policy manager Steven Wojtkiw said the budget would successfully trim the government's internal spending, and boost business in the state through major infrastructure projects such as the East West Link, which earned $15 million for a business case study.
The budget would also reduce Victorian employers' costs by cutting WorkCover premiums by three per cent, Mr Wojtkiw said.
"This budget is a plus for business," he told reporters.
Victorian Automobile Chamber of Commerce spokesman David Russell said the budget will increase consumer and business confidence which had been at a low ebb.
"Small business owners are likely to regard this budget as responsible and balanced and therefore they hope it will improve consumer and business confidence," he told reporters.
Mr Russell said he appreciated the cut in WorkCover premiums, however small, and welcomed spending on small business programs.
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8460222/vic-workcover-premiums-cut-welcomed
Ambos seek 30% rise, morale at 'rock bottom'
Jill Stark
Photo: John Donegan
Victoria's paramedics are the lowest paid in the country, according to the Ambulance Employees Association.
AMBULANCE paramedics are demanding a 30 per cent pay increase, better overtime rates and more support for those injured, psychologically traumatised or bullied on the job.
The log of claims obtained by The Sunday Age and delivered to Ambulance Victoria on Thursday seeks to address ''rock bottom morale'' by delivering improved conditions and pay parity with paramedics in other states.
The Ambulance Employees Association says Victoria's 2500 paramedics are the lowest paid in the country and have called for an 18 per cent pay rise in the first year of the agreement - to bring wages in line with South Australia and the ACT - and 6 per cent a year for the remaining two years.
Victoria has not seen an ambulance strike since the early '70s, but the union says its members are prepared for a long industrial campaign and will walk off the job if negotiations do not progress satisfactorily.
''Unless we do something about pay rates in Victoria we're going to continue to lose more paramedics than what are being recruited,'' said union state secretary Steve McGhie. ''We know the government's wages policy is only 2.5 per cent plus productivity, but we think that Victorian paramedics clearly should be valued the same as paramedics in other states. It's about recruitment and retention and trying to keep people in the job.''
Mr McGhie said Victorian paramedics had the highest injury rate of any public sector group in the state - around one in 10 has submitted a WorkCover claim.
The union's demands include the establishment of a welfare support panel to help redeploy injured staff. The panel would include a mental health expert, a union representative and an employer representative who would ensure paramedics were supported during and after a medical leave of absence.
''The problem in regard to injury rate in the ambulance service is so high they can't keep up with it. The highest rate is to do with back injuries and the movement of patients. The second highest is psychological issues, and that obviously comes from dealing with the pressures of the job, the death and the dying and the trauma that they see,'' Mr McGhie said.
Mr McGhie wrote to the Premier in February saying the union is willing to let the industrial umpire, Fair Work Australia, determine the wage-claim part of the agreement to avoid any major dispute, but he is yet to receive a response.
A spokeswoman for Health Minister David Davis said the government was looking forward to starting negotiations with the union. The current enterprise agreement expires at the end of November.
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/national/health/ambos-seek-30-rise-morale-at-rock-bottom-20120428-1xruv.html#ixzz1tc3wckmE
April 29, 2012
Photo: John DoneganVictoria's paramedics are the lowest paid in the country, according to the Ambulance Employees Association.
The log of claims obtained by The Sunday Age and delivered to Ambulance Victoria on Thursday seeks to address ''rock bottom morale'' by delivering improved conditions and pay parity with paramedics in other states.
The Ambulance Employees Association says Victoria's 2500 paramedics are the lowest paid in the country and have called for an 18 per cent pay rise in the first year of the agreement - to bring wages in line with South Australia and the ACT - and 6 per cent a year for the remaining two years.
Paramedics are increasingly working overtime to respond to high demand for ambulances, and the union wants an increase in penalty rates for working beyond rostered shifts.
''Unless we do something about pay rates in Victoria we're going to continue to lose more paramedics than what are being recruited,'' said union state secretary Steve McGhie. ''We know the government's wages policy is only 2.5 per cent plus productivity, but we think that Victorian paramedics clearly should be valued the same as paramedics in other states. It's about recruitment and retention and trying to keep people in the job.''
Mr McGhie said Victorian paramedics had the highest injury rate of any public sector group in the state - around one in 10 has submitted a WorkCover claim.
The union's demands include the establishment of a welfare support panel to help redeploy injured staff. The panel would include a mental health expert, a union representative and an employer representative who would ensure paramedics were supported during and after a medical leave of absence.
''The problem in regard to injury rate in the ambulance service is so high they can't keep up with it. The highest rate is to do with back injuries and the movement of patients. The second highest is psychological issues, and that obviously comes from dealing with the pressures of the job, the death and the dying and the trauma that they see,'' Mr McGhie said.
Mr McGhie wrote to the Premier in February saying the union is willing to let the industrial umpire, Fair Work Australia, determine the wage-claim part of the agreement to avoid any major dispute, but he is yet to receive a response.
A spokeswoman for Health Minister David Davis said the government was looking forward to starting negotiations with the union. The current enterprise agreement expires at the end of November.
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/national/health/ambos-seek-30-rise-morale-at-rock-bottom-20120428-1xruv.html#ixzz1tc3wckmE
Monday, April 23, 2012
Sunday, April 22, 2012
'Full weight of law' if Slipper guilty, key independent Tony Windsor says
From:AAP
April 22, 2012 4:00PM
KEY independent MP Tony Windsor says if Peter Slipper is found guilty, the 'full weight of the law' should be against him.
Mr Windsor said The matter was before a court and everyone had the right to the presumption of innocence and due process, he said.
But if the court were to find against Mr Slipper, the "weight of the law" should be thrown against him.
Mr Windsor said earlier he would consider a no-confidence motion against Mr Slipper in parliament, but he would need more information before making a final decision.
April 22, 2012 4:00PM
KEY independent MP Tony Windsor says if Peter Slipper is found guilty, the 'full weight of the law' should be against him.
Mr Windsor said The matter was before a court and everyone had the right to the presumption of innocence and due process, he said.
But if the court were to find against Mr Slipper, the "weight of the law" should be thrown against him.
Mr Windsor said earlier he would consider a no-confidence motion against Mr Slipper in parliament, but he would need more information before making a final decision.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)