This is a transcript from The World Today. The program is broadcast around
Australia at 12:10pm on ABC Local Radio.
The World Today - Monday, 17 February , 2003 00:00:00
ELEANOR HALL: Back home now, to a controversial decision by Australia's
highest court. The critical question in the judgement, should a worker who
cuts a finger while peeling an apple in the lunchroom get compensation?
The answer, according to the High Court, is yes.It's denied Carlton and
United Breweries leave to appeal against a judgement which granted Mr
Mario Hegedis compensation for just such an injury. But Carlton and
United is not the only party angry. Victoria's Workcover Authority is also
up in arms.It claims this legal precedent could blow out the costs of workers'
compensation. But the workers say that had Workcover's view prevailed,
it would have changed the whole basis of the law, denying compensation to
anyone who couldn't prove that their work was a direct cause of their injury,
and leaving people caught up in terrorist attacks while at work with no
protection.Our finance correspondent Stephen Long reports.
STEPHEN LONG: On December 4 1998, Mario Hegedis was peeling an apple
during his lunch break in the crib room at Carlton United's Melbourne Brewery.
The knife slipped and slashed his hand. It might surprise some listeners,
but compensation for this kind of injury at work has generally been a routine
matter.Paul Mulvaney of Slater and Gordon explains.
PAUL MULVANEY: It has been traditionally the case that people who suffer
traumatic injuries at work, generally, are entitled to receive compensation,
even if work didn't cause the accident.
STEPHEN LONG: That was until the Kennett Government took power in
Victoria. In 1992, it amended the law so workers could only get compensation
for injuries suffered during the course of employment if the job was a "significant
contributing factor."And on the basis, a magistrate rejected a claim by Mario
Hegedis for 300 dollars in medical expenses. The ruling was overturned
on appeal by the Victorian Supreme Court. It found that the law was only
really intended to apply to diseases and similar injuries; strokes, heart attacks,
deafness and the like, and not to physical trauma suffered on the job.
And that interpretation's been upheld, first by three appeal court judges in
Victoria, then on Friday by the High Court, which denied CUB
leave to appeal. Victoria's Workcover Authority is not happy.It's warning the
decision could significantly increase the costs of compensation for employers
and the whole community, even allowing compensation to someone who burns
their nose while lighting a cigarette at work.But Paul Mulvaney accuses
Workcover of sensationalism. He says it's trying to disguise the fact that its
position could have changed the "no fault" basis of the law and denied
compensation to thousands of workers.
PAUL MULVANEY: The most important issue, had the appeal succeeded,
relates to major traumatic events that occur at work. For example, if 9/11
happened in Victoria at a workplace, then if Workcover's interpretation of
the law were correct, those workers would not be entitled to receive
compensation. Or in another extreme example, if a gunman ran into a
workplace and injured employees, on Workcover's interpretation they
would only be entitled to compensation if the gunman was a disgruntled
ex-employee or a disgruntled customer or had some grudge against the
workplace. If it was just a madman who chose the place without logic,
then they wouldn't receive compensation.
STEPHEN LONG: So, employees involved in something akin to the
Hoddle Street massacre could not get compensation on this interpretation?
PAUL MULVANEY: If the Hoddle Street massacre had occurred at the
place of work, yes.
STEPHEN LONG: How would you respond to people who would say, look,
it seems reasonable that someone who gets compensated at work if they get
a hand mangled in a machine or they suffer some sort of repetitive strain
injury, but it doesn't seem reasonable to me that a person gets compensated
simply because they cut their hand whilst peeling an apple during a work break.
PAUL MULVANEY: It's easy enough to trivialise the situation as an apple, or
as the Workcover Authority has put out a press release talking about cigarette
burns. They're very rare cases. Why this is important is because historically
workers' compensation legislation is a no-fault system, and the connection
with work is simply sufficient if the in jury occurred at work. The difficulty
with drawing lines is if you draw them on the basis that the Kennett legislation
sought to do, then you would disadvantage many thousands of workers.
STEPHEN LONG: Workcover isn't content to let it rest there. It says it's
consulting stakeholders with a view to further amendments. Plaintiff lawyers
say they are open to changes to clarify the law's application to people struck
down by illnesses unrelated to work; strokes and heart attacks and so on.But
some question Workcover's priorities, and whether it was worthwhile spending
more than a 100,000 dollars of taxpayers' money to try to block a workers'
claim for $300 compensation.
No comments:
Post a Comment