The union covering Australia Post employees says injured workers are
being forced back to work early. (ABC News: Gary Rivett)
A union has claimed that injured Australia Post employees are being forced
back to work early, and that savings in compensation payments are being
used to fund bonuses for senior executives.
The Communications, Electrical and Plumbing Union is meeting Federal
Communications Minister Stephen Conroy in Canberra this morning to
discuss its concerns about workers' compensation.
Its New South Wales state secretary, Jim Metcher, says the situation is
jeopardising workers' safety."Those actions are resulting in workers right
across Australia who are sick and injured in the workplace having their
workers compensation entitlements removed, and now even resulting
in workers being dismissed from their employment," he said.
Australia Post says independent compensation delegates are the only
people who can accept or deny compensation claims.
Ref: ABC News
Showing posts with label workers rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label workers rights. Show all posts
Monday, 16 March 2009
Friday, 3 October 2008
Express your WILL to an elected representative
The following is an extract from a book titled "Your Will Be Done"
by Arthur A Chresby.
It is a simple, non technical, beginner's book of the true legal functions of the
Queen, Governor General, State Governors, Parliament, Parliamentarians,
and the People.
Many people think that they are a voice lost in the wilderness. They see a
problem and know many people who see the same problem, however they
don't know how to go about taking an effective action and getting a politician
to take notice and act.
To quote Arthur Chresby - "It is your legal duty and obligation,
and yours alone, to keep your Members and Senators fully
informed, at all times, of your 'WILL". That is your true lawful
relationship with your Members and your Senators."
What Is The Correct Relationship of an Elector to a Member of
Parliament?
The sole reason for the existance of Parliament
The whole system of Parliament, and the SOLE reason for its existence, is to
make laws for the people, with the clear Implication that those laws will reflect
the WILL of the people on the subject matter of those laws.
By those legal implications you have a lawful duty and obligation to keep your
Members and Senators fully informed about what your WILL is upon any issue
or matter that comes before them in their Houses of Parliament, or that should
come before them.
It is only when you fulfil that lawful duty and obligation that your Member and
Senators can properly fulfil their judicially defined function and duty in their
houses of Parliament. If you do not fulfil your lawful duty and obligation, if you
do not keep your Members and Senators fully informed of your will on any issue,
then you cannot blame them for what they do. You have only your own laziness
or indifference to blame.
How to correctly inform of your will
How do you correctly inform your Members and Senators of your WILL?
It is so simple that only laziness and indifference ON YOUR PART stops
It from working. Yes, it is so very simple, and here is an example: Suppose,
for instance, you believe that income tax should be halved and sales tax
completely eliminated. You write, in this case, AN INDIVIDUAL letter to
your Federal Member, and each one of your State Senators, such as this:
Example 1:
Dear Sir/Madam,
I know that it is my duty to keep you informed of MY WILL on anything that
comes before Parliament, or that should come before Parliament.
IT IS MY WILL that you take immediate action to include all Victorian Workers
in any decision making regarding the recomendations made in the Hanks Report
before, any action is taken by the Government or Worksafe Victoria.
Yours faithfully,
Workcover Victims
(insert your full name, address and date, as legal evidence that you are
a constituent.)
Should your Member or Senators try to side step (and some of them are
extremely adept at doing this) or tell you what their party is or is not doing,
you simply write back and say:
Example 2:
Dear Sir/Madam,
I repeat that, in accordance with my lawful obligation to keep you informed of
MY WILL, I again inform you that it is MY WILL that; you include all Victorian
Workers in any decision making process by either the Government or Worksafe Victoria regarding any of the changes recomended in the Hanks Report.
Yours faithfully,
Workcover Victims
(insert your full name, address and date, as legal evidence that you are a
constituent.)
Don't enter into written argument with a politician, for many politicians are
past masters in the art of avoiding that which they don't want to face up to,
and become experts in manipulating words to their benefit.
Although the majority of politicians would never publicly admit it, what worries
them most - irrespective of majority or party - is the percentage trend in
electorate thinking that is shown by the number of simple straight letters
clearly expressing THE WILL of the elector signing the letter.
An illustration of the above point
To illustrate the above point further: Opinion polls claim to reveal THE TREND
of public thinking BY ASKING SIMPLE QUESTIONS of a given number of people
selected at random, and, more often than not, the trend shown is reasonably
accurate. BUT NOTE THAT THE TREND IS WORKED OUT ON THE BASIS OF
THE OPINIONS of people, and people can change their opinions as often as they
change their clothes.
The principle of percentage trends in electorate thinking as shown by the
above simple straight MY WILL letter Is an entirely different thing, and
certainly leads to greater accuracy, for politicians know from experience that
if one of their electors sits down to write such a simple " IT IS MY WILL"
letter, then that elector is not expressing a mere opinion, but knows what he
wants and says so in a no nonsense way. It is doubly impressed upon the
politician's mind if, after trying to side track the elector, he still gets back a
straight "IT IS MY WILL”
Experience of the various techniques used in opinion polls, and the evaluation
of same, reveals that one such "IT IS MY WILL letter indicates the
mathematical probability that a MINIMUM of four (4) other electors are of the
same conviction but have not written.
Even the least intelligent politician, where his Seat Is concerned, can multiply
by four (4) the number of such 'MY WILL letters he receives, and if he gets
two or three thousand such letters he will know that he is going to come up
with a mathematical stomach twisting figure showing that he is not in tune
with his electorate.
Self preservation, even with a party ridden politician, is always of the highest
motivating priority to that politician, and, as the long experience of the former
Queensland Parliamentarian, Senator lan Wood, has proved, time and again,
a political party thinks many times when trying to remove a determined straight Parliamentarian who has electorate thinking behind him. (Senator Wood
fulfilled his judicially defined function and duty and refused, consistently, to
bend to party pressures.)
On a subject like the drastic reduction of income tax, and removal of sales tax,
it is obviously something on which most people will have strong convictions,
not mere opinions. Thus, it requires only a few ordinary people to get together
in their various electorates and, after writing their own "MY WILL letters get
out amongst friends, relatives, acquaintances and others in their own electorate
inviting them all to write such "MY WILL" letters to their Federal Member and
State Senators. Such determined ordinary people also have relatives and friends
in other electorates and can invite them to do likewise.
Thus, in no time, the work of, say 3, 4, 5 or 6 people can spread like wildfire
through the electorate, especially when most people are incensed over one thing.
To get two or three thousand individually signed "MY WILL" letters is not a
hard task for such ordinary determined people.
Ordinary people have the legal privilege
It must never be forgotten that ordinary people have the legal privilege, if they
wish to exercise it, of quietly approaching relatives, friends, acquaintances and
others inviting them to write such " MY WILL" letters to their Member and
Senators. It requires no committees, no resolutions, no street marching, no
formation of groups, bodies or associations with all sorts of names and titles.
No constitutions, no minutes, no wasting of hours in fruitless arguing and
discussions, no presidents, secretaries or treasurers.
All that is required is that an individual with a determination to act lawfully
to right or alter something he doesn't like, and with the initiative to do so, is to
write his "MY WILL" letter, show others and encourage them to do likewise.
There are a multitude of issues upon which people have strong convictions and
the simple "MY WILL" letter is their lawful simple way of telling their M.P.
It is your personal responsibility
Don't argue that it will not work, or that people are stupid. If you feel strongly
enough about something, don't just moan and talk about it, write your
"MY WILL" letters. IT IS YOUR PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY to do so,
not someone else, nor those never identified "THEY OUGHT TO DO
SOMETHING ABOUT IT". You have to be your own "they".
It is stressed again: it is your legal privilege, and your lawful duty, to
encourage others, peacefully and quietly, in the manner outlined in this
Chapter. A Parliamentarian, armed with the written proof of the 'WILL"
of his electors, upon any issue, can completely ignore party pressures and
set about faithfully fulfilling his judicially defined legal function and legal duty.
He is free to be a Parliamentarian and not, as at present in most cases, a mere
party yes man. THE "MY WILL" LETTER IS A LEGAL DEMONSTRATION
OF THE PRINCIPLES OF DEMOCRACY IN ACTION.
Why you also write when a Parliamentarian pleases you
When your Members of Parliament, State and Federal, do something that
pleases you WRITE AND TELL THEM SO, as Members get plenty of abusive
letters and extremely few courteous ones. If a Member or Senator knows that
he is the centre of watchfulness from his area at all times he is left with no
alternative than to carry out his judicially defined function and duty, no matter
the protests and pressures of his party.
Thus, Politicians, secure in the knowledge of written electorate support,
possessed of the written "MY WILL", is freed from control of the party
manipulators, for the party has lost control over his voice and vote on all
issues on which the electorate has expressed its WILL. Wise politicians would
do well to continuously seek the written WILL of all their electors on every
issue and proposed legislation. After all they do have offices and a secretary in
their electorate, whilst Federal Members also have Research Officers, so they
have no excuse for not organising to seek the electors "WILL" before casting
their votes in their House of Parliament.
To sum up this Chapter:
It is your legal duty and obligation, and yours alone, to keep your Members
and Senators fully informed, at all times, of your 'WILL". That is your true
lawful relationship with your Members and your Senators.
by Arthur A Chresby.
It is a simple, non technical, beginner's book of the true legal functions of the
Queen, Governor General, State Governors, Parliament, Parliamentarians,
and the People.
Many people think that they are a voice lost in the wilderness. They see a
problem and know many people who see the same problem, however they
don't know how to go about taking an effective action and getting a politician
to take notice and act.
To quote Arthur Chresby - "It is your legal duty and obligation,
and yours alone, to keep your Members and Senators fully
informed, at all times, of your 'WILL". That is your true lawful
relationship with your Members and your Senators."
What Is The Correct Relationship of an Elector to a Member of
Parliament?
The sole reason for the existance of Parliament
The whole system of Parliament, and the SOLE reason for its existence, is to
make laws for the people, with the clear Implication that those laws will reflect
the WILL of the people on the subject matter of those laws.
By those legal implications you have a lawful duty and obligation to keep your
Members and Senators fully informed about what your WILL is upon any issue
or matter that comes before them in their Houses of Parliament, or that should
come before them.
It is only when you fulfil that lawful duty and obligation that your Member and
Senators can properly fulfil their judicially defined function and duty in their
houses of Parliament. If you do not fulfil your lawful duty and obligation, if you
do not keep your Members and Senators fully informed of your will on any issue,
then you cannot blame them for what they do. You have only your own laziness
or indifference to blame.
How to correctly inform of your will
How do you correctly inform your Members and Senators of your WILL?
It is so simple that only laziness and indifference ON YOUR PART stops
It from working. Yes, it is so very simple, and here is an example: Suppose,
for instance, you believe that income tax should be halved and sales tax
completely eliminated. You write, in this case, AN INDIVIDUAL letter to
your Federal Member, and each one of your State Senators, such as this:
Example 1:
Dear Sir/Madam,
I know that it is my duty to keep you informed of MY WILL on anything that
comes before Parliament, or that should come before Parliament.
IT IS MY WILL that you take immediate action to include all Victorian Workers
in any decision making regarding the recomendations made in the Hanks Report
before, any action is taken by the Government or Worksafe Victoria.
Yours faithfully,
Workcover Victims
(insert your full name, address and date, as legal evidence that you are
a constituent.)
Should your Member or Senators try to side step (and some of them are
extremely adept at doing this) or tell you what their party is or is not doing,
you simply write back and say:
Example 2:
Dear Sir/Madam,
I repeat that, in accordance with my lawful obligation to keep you informed of
MY WILL, I again inform you that it is MY WILL that; you include all Victorian
Workers in any decision making process by either the Government or Worksafe Victoria regarding any of the changes recomended in the Hanks Report.
Yours faithfully,
Workcover Victims
(insert your full name, address and date, as legal evidence that you are a
constituent.)
Don't enter into written argument with a politician, for many politicians are
past masters in the art of avoiding that which they don't want to face up to,
and become experts in manipulating words to their benefit.
Although the majority of politicians would never publicly admit it, what worries
them most - irrespective of majority or party - is the percentage trend in
electorate thinking that is shown by the number of simple straight letters
clearly expressing THE WILL of the elector signing the letter.
An illustration of the above point
To illustrate the above point further: Opinion polls claim to reveal THE TREND
of public thinking BY ASKING SIMPLE QUESTIONS of a given number of people
selected at random, and, more often than not, the trend shown is reasonably
accurate. BUT NOTE THAT THE TREND IS WORKED OUT ON THE BASIS OF
THE OPINIONS of people, and people can change their opinions as often as they
change their clothes.
The principle of percentage trends in electorate thinking as shown by the
above simple straight MY WILL letter Is an entirely different thing, and
certainly leads to greater accuracy, for politicians know from experience that
if one of their electors sits down to write such a simple " IT IS MY WILL"
letter, then that elector is not expressing a mere opinion, but knows what he
wants and says so in a no nonsense way. It is doubly impressed upon the
politician's mind if, after trying to side track the elector, he still gets back a
straight "IT IS MY WILL”
Experience of the various techniques used in opinion polls, and the evaluation
of same, reveals that one such "IT IS MY WILL letter indicates the
mathematical probability that a MINIMUM of four (4) other electors are of the
same conviction but have not written.
Even the least intelligent politician, where his Seat Is concerned, can multiply
by four (4) the number of such 'MY WILL letters he receives, and if he gets
two or three thousand such letters he will know that he is going to come up
with a mathematical stomach twisting figure showing that he is not in tune
with his electorate.
Self preservation, even with a party ridden politician, is always of the highest
motivating priority to that politician, and, as the long experience of the former
Queensland Parliamentarian, Senator lan Wood, has proved, time and again,
a political party thinks many times when trying to remove a determined straight Parliamentarian who has electorate thinking behind him. (Senator Wood
fulfilled his judicially defined function and duty and refused, consistently, to
bend to party pressures.)
On a subject like the drastic reduction of income tax, and removal of sales tax,
it is obviously something on which most people will have strong convictions,
not mere opinions. Thus, it requires only a few ordinary people to get together
in their various electorates and, after writing their own "MY WILL letters get
out amongst friends, relatives, acquaintances and others in their own electorate
inviting them all to write such "MY WILL" letters to their Federal Member and
State Senators. Such determined ordinary people also have relatives and friends
in other electorates and can invite them to do likewise.
Thus, in no time, the work of, say 3, 4, 5 or 6 people can spread like wildfire
through the electorate, especially when most people are incensed over one thing.
To get two or three thousand individually signed "MY WILL" letters is not a
hard task for such ordinary determined people.
Ordinary people have the legal privilege
It must never be forgotten that ordinary people have the legal privilege, if they
wish to exercise it, of quietly approaching relatives, friends, acquaintances and
others inviting them to write such " MY WILL" letters to their Member and
Senators. It requires no committees, no resolutions, no street marching, no
formation of groups, bodies or associations with all sorts of names and titles.
No constitutions, no minutes, no wasting of hours in fruitless arguing and
discussions, no presidents, secretaries or treasurers.
All that is required is that an individual with a determination to act lawfully
to right or alter something he doesn't like, and with the initiative to do so, is to
write his "MY WILL" letter, show others and encourage them to do likewise.
There are a multitude of issues upon which people have strong convictions and
the simple "MY WILL" letter is their lawful simple way of telling their M.P.
It is your personal responsibility
Don't argue that it will not work, or that people are stupid. If you feel strongly
enough about something, don't just moan and talk about it, write your
"MY WILL" letters. IT IS YOUR PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY to do so,
not someone else, nor those never identified "THEY OUGHT TO DO
SOMETHING ABOUT IT". You have to be your own "they".
It is stressed again: it is your legal privilege, and your lawful duty, to
encourage others, peacefully and quietly, in the manner outlined in this
Chapter. A Parliamentarian, armed with the written proof of the 'WILL"
of his electors, upon any issue, can completely ignore party pressures and
set about faithfully fulfilling his judicially defined legal function and legal duty.
He is free to be a Parliamentarian and not, as at present in most cases, a mere
party yes man. THE "MY WILL" LETTER IS A LEGAL DEMONSTRATION
OF THE PRINCIPLES OF DEMOCRACY IN ACTION.
Why you also write when a Parliamentarian pleases you
When your Members of Parliament, State and Federal, do something that
pleases you WRITE AND TELL THEM SO, as Members get plenty of abusive
letters and extremely few courteous ones. If a Member or Senator knows that
he is the centre of watchfulness from his area at all times he is left with no
alternative than to carry out his judicially defined function and duty, no matter
the protests and pressures of his party.
Thus, Politicians, secure in the knowledge of written electorate support,
possessed of the written "MY WILL", is freed from control of the party
manipulators, for the party has lost control over his voice and vote on all
issues on which the electorate has expressed its WILL. Wise politicians would
do well to continuously seek the written WILL of all their electors on every
issue and proposed legislation. After all they do have offices and a secretary in
their electorate, whilst Federal Members also have Research Officers, so they
have no excuse for not organising to seek the electors "WILL" before casting
their votes in their House of Parliament.
To sum up this Chapter:
It is your legal duty and obligation, and yours alone, to keep your Members
and Senators fully informed, at all times, of your 'WILL". That is your true
lawful relationship with your Members and your Senators.
Saturday, 20 September 2008
WCV's response to Mr Holding re: fixworkcover campaign letter
Dear Mr Holding,
Thank you for you correspondence received August 7th 2008 in relation to
my letter sent via the VTHC website.
I was led to believe that Mr Hanks QC would be providing the government his
report this month? Can you please verify to WCV’s what date we can expect this
report to be made available to the public?
I am extremely concerned about your understanding of my recent correspondence
as I believe that my concerns more than peripherally relate to the objects of this
review.
I have personally been effected by this system and fully understand and
comprehend the changes Mr Hanks will make and its effect on my families lives.
So for your total understanding of my correspondence I have discussed my
concerns and complaints further so as; I may receive your total understanding
of the issues raised.
The VWA claims that psychological and psychiatric injuries are a major problem
and its right. Psychological and psychiatric injuries inflict massive suffering on
the 3,000 workers who receive stress injuries at work each year.
The Review being conducted by Mr Hanks QC wants to solve the problem by
taking most stress claims out of the system as a "work-place injury".
Mr Hanks also said that a psychological and psychiatric injury that arises
from any “reasonable management action” shouldn’t count as a work-place
injury.
Of course from WorkSafe’s point of view this would solve this problem, and if
these changes are passed then an injured worker would be left on the scrap heap
without medical care or financial support. The Review also wants to force these
workers to take part in mediation and/or workplace counselling before liability
for their claim is considered.
The VTHC says including “any reasonable management action” as a reason to
not accept claims discriminates against injured workers with psychological and
psychiatric injuries, and will result in the vast majority of stress claims not being accepted.Worksafe Victoria holds the record for rejecting new claims by injured
workers. It rejects 14.1% per year when in Queensland, only 3.8 % are rejected.
Worksafe Victoria is the most profitable system of workers compensation in Australia.
It makes a profit of more that $1 billion a year and pays more than $700 million
a year into state government coffers.
Since 2004 Worksafe has cut employers premiums by 45% saving them $2 billion
and despite WorkSafe’s profits and its gifts to employers and its support of country
football it still fails to provide quality care for injured workers.
Under the Hanks recommendations premiums will be cut by another 6% reducing
even further, the funds available to care for injured workers. What’s wrong with
this picture?
We here at Workcover Victims and the Trades Hall Council want every
Victorian to let the government know that it's time Worksafe was for workers,
not for employers and to include the following inclusions into its changes and
provide some form of protection for injured workers in Victoria.
1. Increase Weekly Payments
Currently, injured workers' weekly benefits are cut after 130 weeks, unless
they are able to demonstrate that they have "no work capacity" for any
employment and that this incapacity is likely to continue indefinitely.
The VTHC says the period of entitlement to weekly benefits should be
increased to 260 weeks, or five years.
How much should injured workers get?
The Victorian system of weekly payments is one of the worst in Australia.
The Hanks Review refused to examine the payments regime and made only
one slight improvement. Currently workers get 95% of pre-injury average
weekly earnings (PIAWE) including overtime for 13 weeks, then 75% up to
26 weeks, then 75% (less overtime) until 130 weeks.
The only change that Hanks has recommended is that after 13 weeks the
percentage increases to 80%.
The VTHC says that there should be an increase in the level of weekly
payments to 100% of PIAWE for the first 12 months, then 80% for the
duration of the entitlement period.
How should the payments be calculated?
The current manner, in which PIAWE is calculated whilst including piece work,
does not include allowances, commissions, bonuses, salary packaging etc.
This means that effective rates of weekly payments often fall well below the
current 95% and 75% rates in the Act. The VTHC says the calculation should
be based upon "normal weekly earnings" that incorporates pay structures,
including overtime, shift penalties and all other benefits and not based solely
on ordinary rates of pay for normal hours worked.
2. Make Automatic Payments.The delays that exist between a worker being
injured and getting their first weekly payment causes major financial hardship
and means that vital medical and rehabilitative services are delayed.
The VTHC says full provisional liability should be introduced to provide weekly
benefits and medical and like expenses within 7 days of a claim being made.
3. Cover All Stress Injuries.The Workcover Authority claims that
psychological/psychiatric injuries are a major problem. It's right;
these injuries inflict massive suffering on the workers who have them.
Mr Hanks wants to solve the problem by taking most stress claims out of
the system as a work-place injury that workers receive compensation for
from Workcover. He says a psychological/psychiatric injury that arises from
any "reasonable management action" shouldn't count as a work-place injury.
From Workcover’s point of view this would solve the problem, but a worker
would be left on the scrap-heap without medical care or financial support.
Every year about 3000 people receive stress injuries at work. The Review
also wants to force these workers to take part in mediation and/or workplace
counselling before liability for their claim is considered. The VTHC says
including "any reasonable management action" as a reason to not accept
claims discriminates against injured workers with psychological/psychiatric
injuries, and will result in the vast majority of stress claims not being accepted.
4. Improve Dispute Resolution Process.If your right to be compensated for a
work-place injury is challenged, your first port of call is the Accident
Compensation Conciliation Service (ACCS). But now, the toothless tiger
may be stripped of its few remaining powers and reduced to a mere talking
shop. Although it's been a toothless tiger for years, it is still a place where
injured workers can make some progress in claiming their rights.
Mr Hanks wants the have the ACCS's powers reduced so that it's a mere
talking shop and have Workcover dictate most of what it does. This would
see at least an extra 6000 claims being forced into the courts for resolution.
The VTHC estimates it will cost workers and employers at least an extra
$60 million a year. This means $30 million each more than the current system.
It would be a lawyers' picnic. It would blow-out the delays in court resolutions
of Workcover claims by at least two years. And extend the suffering and delay
medical treatment for injured workers. It would stop the treatment of injuries
that should be treated and fixed quickly. It would turn basic ordinary injuries
into a battle ground that would prevent workers from pursuing their claims
and create a financial gift to lawyers. For Injuries that could be fixed fast and
the worker back to work quickly, it would extend the process into a complex
legal battle that would mean that the injuries would become long-term and
chronic. This is an ill-considered and, in practice, a mad plan.
The VTHC says workers' claims must be resolved quickly. Unions want a
one-stop shop that has the power to conciliate issues - and - if that fails,
arbitrate. The unions' solution is speedy, simple, fair and economically
efficient. It would deliver the best results for workers and employers.
5. Improve Return to Work Rights for WorkersMr Hanks proposes to remove
from the law most, if not all, of the employer obligations in the return to work
process and move them to guidance material, regulations and codes of
compliance. He also proposes that OH&S reps be the ONLY people -
apart from the injured worker - who can represent an injured worker
in the return to work process. This is a fundamental attack on an injured
worker's right to make their own decision about who represents them at
a critical period in their life. The VTHC says the obligations must remain
in the Act, an injured worker should be able to choose anyone to represent
them and the whole process must be reformed to improve the rights of injured
workers, increase the obligations on employers to return injured workers
to meaningful work.
6. Stop Discrimination.Injured workers are amongst the most discriminated
against groups in the community. But it doesn't just start after they lodge their
Workcover, it can happen if their employer thinks they are going to lodge a
claim. And it isn't just the injured worker who faces discrimination, it can
include anyone who encourages or helps an injured to lodge a claim.
Mr Hanks merely wants to bring the Workcover Act's anti-discrimination
provisions into line with the OHS Act. This doesn't go far enough. The VTHC
says the Act must be changed to prevent all forms of discrimination against
the injured worker or work-mates that may be assisting them in their claim.
7. Bring Outworkers inOutworkers are the most vulnerable workers in Victoria.
Their hours are long and they are regularly the victims of unscrupulous
employers. Mr Hanks says the Act merely needs to be clarified to properly
cover outworkers. But this does not go far enough. Even if it is clarified, the
law won't address the sham working arrangements forced on outworkers
by their employers. The VTHC says existing provisions need not only to
be clarified but also changed to ensure coverage for outworkers. Protection
should not be limited to natural persons and sole employee companies but
should also extend to all sham arrangements.
Now Mr Holding, do my comments only peripherally relate to the objects
of the review?
I have clearly outlined my expectations of this system and its review.
Yours Sincerely,
Workcover Victims
Now after writing the above letter to Mr Holding he hasn't even bothered to
respond too it?
If he is going to continue to ignore his responsibilities then he should be
removed from his office because he is ignoring the very people he was
employed to help!
If you cant take the criticism Mr Holding then resign your position and allow
someone to take over who cares about their job and the injured workers of
Victoria!
Thank you for you correspondence received August 7th 2008 in relation to
my letter sent via the VTHC website.
I was led to believe that Mr Hanks QC would be providing the government his
report this month? Can you please verify to WCV’s what date we can expect this
report to be made available to the public?
I am extremely concerned about your understanding of my recent correspondence
as I believe that my concerns more than peripherally relate to the objects of this
review.
I have personally been effected by this system and fully understand and
comprehend the changes Mr Hanks will make and its effect on my families lives.
So for your total understanding of my correspondence I have discussed my
concerns and complaints further so as; I may receive your total understanding
of the issues raised.
The VWA claims that psychological and psychiatric injuries are a major problem
and its right. Psychological and psychiatric injuries inflict massive suffering on
the 3,000 workers who receive stress injuries at work each year.
The Review being conducted by Mr Hanks QC wants to solve the problem by
taking most stress claims out of the system as a "work-place injury".
Mr Hanks also said that a psychological and psychiatric injury that arises
from any “reasonable management action” shouldn’t count as a work-place
injury.
Of course from WorkSafe’s point of view this would solve this problem, and if
these changes are passed then an injured worker would be left on the scrap heap
without medical care or financial support. The Review also wants to force these
workers to take part in mediation and/or workplace counselling before liability
for their claim is considered.
The VTHC says including “any reasonable management action” as a reason to
not accept claims discriminates against injured workers with psychological and
psychiatric injuries, and will result in the vast majority of stress claims not being accepted.Worksafe Victoria holds the record for rejecting new claims by injured
workers. It rejects 14.1% per year when in Queensland, only 3.8 % are rejected.
Worksafe Victoria is the most profitable system of workers compensation in Australia.
It makes a profit of more that $1 billion a year and pays more than $700 million
a year into state government coffers.
Since 2004 Worksafe has cut employers premiums by 45% saving them $2 billion
and despite WorkSafe’s profits and its gifts to employers and its support of country
football it still fails to provide quality care for injured workers.
Under the Hanks recommendations premiums will be cut by another 6% reducing
even further, the funds available to care for injured workers. What’s wrong with
this picture?
We here at Workcover Victims and the Trades Hall Council want every
Victorian to let the government know that it's time Worksafe was for workers,
not for employers and to include the following inclusions into its changes and
provide some form of protection for injured workers in Victoria.
1. Increase Weekly Payments
Currently, injured workers' weekly benefits are cut after 130 weeks, unless
they are able to demonstrate that they have "no work capacity" for any
employment and that this incapacity is likely to continue indefinitely.
The VTHC says the period of entitlement to weekly benefits should be
increased to 260 weeks, or five years.
How much should injured workers get?
The Victorian system of weekly payments is one of the worst in Australia.
The Hanks Review refused to examine the payments regime and made only
one slight improvement. Currently workers get 95% of pre-injury average
weekly earnings (PIAWE) including overtime for 13 weeks, then 75% up to
26 weeks, then 75% (less overtime) until 130 weeks.
The only change that Hanks has recommended is that after 13 weeks the
percentage increases to 80%.
The VTHC says that there should be an increase in the level of weekly
payments to 100% of PIAWE for the first 12 months, then 80% for the
duration of the entitlement period.
How should the payments be calculated?
The current manner, in which PIAWE is calculated whilst including piece work,
does not include allowances, commissions, bonuses, salary packaging etc.
This means that effective rates of weekly payments often fall well below the
current 95% and 75% rates in the Act. The VTHC says the calculation should
be based upon "normal weekly earnings" that incorporates pay structures,
including overtime, shift penalties and all other benefits and not based solely
on ordinary rates of pay for normal hours worked.
2. Make Automatic Payments.The delays that exist between a worker being
injured and getting their first weekly payment causes major financial hardship
and means that vital medical and rehabilitative services are delayed.
The VTHC says full provisional liability should be introduced to provide weekly
benefits and medical and like expenses within 7 days of a claim being made.
3. Cover All Stress Injuries.The Workcover Authority claims that
psychological/psychiatric injuries are a major problem. It's right;
these injuries inflict massive suffering on the workers who have them.
Mr Hanks wants to solve the problem by taking most stress claims out of
the system as a work-place injury that workers receive compensation for
from Workcover. He says a psychological/psychiatric injury that arises from
any "reasonable management action" shouldn't count as a work-place injury.
From Workcover’s point of view this would solve the problem, but a worker
would be left on the scrap-heap without medical care or financial support.
Every year about 3000 people receive stress injuries at work. The Review
also wants to force these workers to take part in mediation and/or workplace
counselling before liability for their claim is considered. The VTHC says
including "any reasonable management action" as a reason to not accept
claims discriminates against injured workers with psychological/psychiatric
injuries, and will result in the vast majority of stress claims not being accepted.
4. Improve Dispute Resolution Process.If your right to be compensated for a
work-place injury is challenged, your first port of call is the Accident
Compensation Conciliation Service (ACCS). But now, the toothless tiger
may be stripped of its few remaining powers and reduced to a mere talking
shop. Although it's been a toothless tiger for years, it is still a place where
injured workers can make some progress in claiming their rights.
Mr Hanks wants the have the ACCS's powers reduced so that it's a mere
talking shop and have Workcover dictate most of what it does. This would
see at least an extra 6000 claims being forced into the courts for resolution.
The VTHC estimates it will cost workers and employers at least an extra
$60 million a year. This means $30 million each more than the current system.
It would be a lawyers' picnic. It would blow-out the delays in court resolutions
of Workcover claims by at least two years. And extend the suffering and delay
medical treatment for injured workers. It would stop the treatment of injuries
that should be treated and fixed quickly. It would turn basic ordinary injuries
into a battle ground that would prevent workers from pursuing their claims
and create a financial gift to lawyers. For Injuries that could be fixed fast and
the worker back to work quickly, it would extend the process into a complex
legal battle that would mean that the injuries would become long-term and
chronic. This is an ill-considered and, in practice, a mad plan.
The VTHC says workers' claims must be resolved quickly. Unions want a
one-stop shop that has the power to conciliate issues - and - if that fails,
arbitrate. The unions' solution is speedy, simple, fair and economically
efficient. It would deliver the best results for workers and employers.
5. Improve Return to Work Rights for WorkersMr Hanks proposes to remove
from the law most, if not all, of the employer obligations in the return to work
process and move them to guidance material, regulations and codes of
compliance. He also proposes that OH&S reps be the ONLY people -
apart from the injured worker - who can represent an injured worker
in the return to work process. This is a fundamental attack on an injured
worker's right to make their own decision about who represents them at
a critical period in their life. The VTHC says the obligations must remain
in the Act, an injured worker should be able to choose anyone to represent
them and the whole process must be reformed to improve the rights of injured
workers, increase the obligations on employers to return injured workers
to meaningful work.
6. Stop Discrimination.Injured workers are amongst the most discriminated
against groups in the community. But it doesn't just start after they lodge their
Workcover, it can happen if their employer thinks they are going to lodge a
claim. And it isn't just the injured worker who faces discrimination, it can
include anyone who encourages or helps an injured to lodge a claim.
Mr Hanks merely wants to bring the Workcover Act's anti-discrimination
provisions into line with the OHS Act. This doesn't go far enough. The VTHC
says the Act must be changed to prevent all forms of discrimination against
the injured worker or work-mates that may be assisting them in their claim.
7. Bring Outworkers inOutworkers are the most vulnerable workers in Victoria.
Their hours are long and they are regularly the victims of unscrupulous
employers. Mr Hanks says the Act merely needs to be clarified to properly
cover outworkers. But this does not go far enough. Even if it is clarified, the
law won't address the sham working arrangements forced on outworkers
by their employers. The VTHC says existing provisions need not only to
be clarified but also changed to ensure coverage for outworkers. Protection
should not be limited to natural persons and sole employee companies but
should also extend to all sham arrangements.
Now Mr Holding, do my comments only peripherally relate to the objects
of the review?
I have clearly outlined my expectations of this system and its review.
Yours Sincerely,
Workcover Victims
Now after writing the above letter to Mr Holding he hasn't even bothered to
respond too it?
If he is going to continue to ignore his responsibilities then he should be
removed from his office because he is ignoring the very people he was
employed to help!
If you cant take the criticism Mr Holding then resign your position and allow
someone to take over who cares about their job and the injured workers of
Victoria!
Worksafe's Liability in Negligence to the Injured Workers of Victoria
Worksafes inaction and incompetence in managing workplace legislation should
open the door for injured workers to sue them for Negligence.
There are six requirements to ground liability in negligence They are as follows:
a. Existence in law of duty of care situation or an actionable liability to
carelessness (worksafe's duty of care);
b. Carelessness of the defendant who fail to measure up to the standard set by
the law (breach's of the ACA made by worksafe);
c. Causal connection between the careless conduct and the damage (cause in fact,
your injury);
d. Foreseeability that the careless conduct could inflict the particular kind of
damage on the particular plaintiff (cause in law or remoteness);
e. Damage attributable to defendant;( lack of competent management by
worksafe with your claim)
f. Monetary estimate of the damage. ( damages to be paid)
If you have been injured at work or are the carer of an injured worker then
try to obtain legal advice about the negligence you have suffered at the hands
of Worksafe Victoria!
open the door for injured workers to sue them for Negligence.
There are six requirements to ground liability in negligence They are as follows:
a. Existence in law of duty of care situation or an actionable liability to
carelessness (worksafe's duty of care);
b. Carelessness of the defendant who fail to measure up to the standard set by
the law (breach's of the ACA made by worksafe);
c. Causal connection between the careless conduct and the damage (cause in fact,
your injury);
d. Foreseeability that the careless conduct could inflict the particular kind of
damage on the particular plaintiff (cause in law or remoteness);
e. Damage attributable to defendant;( lack of competent management by
worksafe with your claim)
f. Monetary estimate of the damage. ( damages to be paid)
If you have been injured at work or are the carer of an injured worker then
try to obtain legal advice about the negligence you have suffered at the hands
of Worksafe Victoria!
Kennett lied about the statistics to change common law rights
Fact: The Kennett government lied about worksafe statistics and costs to the
public to enable the changes to our common law rights simply, to save money by
preventing the employers levy from increasing which was a pre election promise
made by the Bracks government and nothings been done about it?
Why Not!
Can our politicians just lie to the public and not be held accountable for them?
When does this sort of behaviour become a criminal offence?
The Kennett government changed our laws and our rights by lying and I for
one believe he should be accountable in our law courts.
His lies have effected all the injured workers of Victoria!
I bet if it was an injured worker lying to worksafe or the Government then they
would be cut off and thrown into court! Why isnt Kennett and Hallam being given
the same treatment as an injured worker would be, what makes them so special?
Kennett and Hallams lies have left injured workers untreated and for many they
end up with depression and many attempt suicide.
So I am asking the Government what part of this is fair, reasonable and Justified?
Is the Government going to be reasponsible for the deaths of these injured workers
because worksafe are causing this to happen!
public to enable the changes to our common law rights simply, to save money by
preventing the employers levy from increasing which was a pre election promise
made by the Bracks government and nothings been done about it?
Why Not!
Can our politicians just lie to the public and not be held accountable for them?
When does this sort of behaviour become a criminal offence?
The Kennett government changed our laws and our rights by lying and I for
one believe he should be accountable in our law courts.
His lies have effected all the injured workers of Victoria!
I bet if it was an injured worker lying to worksafe or the Government then they
would be cut off and thrown into court! Why isnt Kennett and Hallam being given
the same treatment as an injured worker would be, what makes them so special?
Kennett and Hallams lies have left injured workers untreated and for many they
end up with depression and many attempt suicide.
So I am asking the Government what part of this is fair, reasonable and Justified?
Is the Government going to be reasponsible for the deaths of these injured workers
because worksafe are causing this to happen!
Solicitors Required
We are searching for solicitors who are interested in representing
"WorkcoverVictims" clients and have a genuine interest in legislations changes.
Please email mailto:workcovervictims@westnet.com.au for more information.
"WorkcoverVictims" clients and have a genuine interest in legislations changes.
Please email mailto:workcovervictims@westnet.com.au for more information.
Wednesday, 17 September 2008
Hanks QC Briefs VTHC Affiliates on
Peter Hanks QC is conducting the review of the Victorian Accident Compensation
Act 1985. He visited the Trades Hall today (23/4) with some members of his VWA
secretariat staff to brief unions and answer questions.
The VTHC is a key member of the Stakeholders Reference Group (SRG) that
is assisting Peter Hanks during the review process. The VTHC has also
prepared a substantial submission to the Inquiry. This has been prepared by a
dedicated sub-committee of the VTHC Executive Council, set up when the Inquiry
was announced in December last year.
The preparation of the submission has been particularly co-ordinated by
Acting VTHC WorkCover Committee Convenor, Geoff Lewin (SPSF) and
WorkCover Committee member Gwynneth Evans (AMIEU).
The scope of the review is focusing on:
Provision of a fair and effective benefit and premium regime, having regard
to workers’ compensation schemes in other jurisdictions. Fundamental need
to protect the operational and financial viability of the scheme. Identifying
and resolving anomalies in the Act and in the operation of the scheme.
Improving employer and employee understanding of the Act. Reducing
regulatory and administrative burden on employers. Improving the usability
of the legislation through the removal of inoperative, irrelevant or
superfluous provisions .
The VTHC submission is arguing amongst many other things, strongly for
improvements in injured workers benefits and stronger return to work and
rehabilitation provisions.
The final report to government is expected by July 2008.
Act 1985. He visited the Trades Hall today (23/4) with some members of his VWA
secretariat staff to brief unions and answer questions.
The VTHC is a key member of the Stakeholders Reference Group (SRG) that
is assisting Peter Hanks during the review process. The VTHC has also
prepared a substantial submission to the Inquiry. This has been prepared by a
dedicated sub-committee of the VTHC Executive Council, set up when the Inquiry
was announced in December last year.
The preparation of the submission has been particularly co-ordinated by
Acting VTHC WorkCover Committee Convenor, Geoff Lewin (SPSF) and
WorkCover Committee member Gwynneth Evans (AMIEU).
The scope of the review is focusing on:
Provision of a fair and effective benefit and premium regime, having regard
to workers’ compensation schemes in other jurisdictions. Fundamental need
to protect the operational and financial viability of the scheme. Identifying
and resolving anomalies in the Act and in the operation of the scheme.
Improving employer and employee understanding of the Act. Reducing
regulatory and administrative burden on employers. Improving the usability
of the legislation through the removal of inoperative, irrelevant or
superfluous provisions .
The VTHC submission is arguing amongst many other things, strongly for
improvements in injured workers benefits and stronger return to work and
rehabilitation provisions.
The final report to government is expected by July 2008.
23 APRIL 2008 By BRIAN BOYD, VTHC SECRETARY
PHOTO: Peter Hanks QC addresses a meeting of VTHC affiliates at Trades Hall
on the Accident Compensation Act Review (23/4/08).
Tuesday, 19 August 2008
Disclosing health information - VWA style
This guide has been designed by the VWA and is specifically for health care
professionals.
It is encouraging your treating doctors to release your medical information
under the views of the VWA.
I would like the VWA to explain to the readers of this blog how they have the
right to demand access to injured workers medical records under the Health
Records Act of Victoria?
This Act was designed to protect the access of this information to the owner
of this information. The only items that the medical practitioner owns is the
paper it is written on but, your doctor does not own the information therefore
it would be a breach of the HRA and the privacy act for this information to be
released to anybody but the owner which the VWA are not!
Any treating doctor would be foolish to release any information based only
on VWA policies as the VWAs views are not law or legal therefore, they would
not stand up in any court in Victoria.
Any Medical practitioner who releases any information without their patients
consent is breaching the Health Records Act, the Privacy act, and their own
ethics.
Injured Workers are not informed of the fact that once they sign their claim
form they have also opened the door for the VWA to access their medical
records and treating Doctors. This needs to be fully explained to all injured
workers before they are directed to sign the claim form by either their
employer or the VWA.
Injured workers should have the right to decide whether or not their medical
records are released to the VWA in full or in part but not at the direction of
the VWA with the threat of non acceptance of your claim if you don't.
Please see the following fact sheet published by the VWA.
This fact sheet is designed to assist health care professionals understand the
law regarding disclosure of health information to the Victorian WorkCover
Authority (VWA) or its WorkCover Agents about a patient’s work related
injury for the purposes of the assessment and management of the patient’s
WorkCover claim under the Accident Compensation Act 1985 (the Act).
The Health Records Act and patient confidentiality:
• The Health Records Act 2001 (Vic) (HRA) allows the VWA to collect health
information from a health care professional about a patient’s work related injury
in a number of circumstances.
• Under the HRA, health care professionals may disclose health information
about a patient to the VWA or its Agents if they have the consent of the patient.
A patient unknowingly consents to such disclosure when they sign
the ‘Authority to Release Medical Information’ on the ‘Worker’s
Claim Form’.
• Under the HRA a health care professional may also disclose health
information about a patient’s work related injury to the VWA or its Agents
without their consent in a number of circumstances relevant to the assessment
and management of the patient’s WorkCover claim, including where:
a. the purpose of disclosing the health information is directly related to the
primary purpose for which information was collected and the worker would
reasonably expect the information to be disclosed for that purpose.
Health care professionals collect health information about a patient for the
primary purpose of treating and managing their injury. The key reasons for
disclosing a patient’s health information to the VWA or its Agents are to:
• provide relevant medical or treatment information about the patient’s
work related injury
• assist in the assessment and management of the patient’s WorkCover claim.
• facilitate the patient’s rehabilitation and return to work.
The VWA considers these to be directly related to the primary
purpose.
WCV's states: What the VWA considers to be directly related to
the primary purpose is not law
It is the VWA’s view that a patient would objectively expect such a disclosure
when they make a claim for compensation.
WCV's States: that again, the VWA's views of expected disclosure
is not law either.
Disclosing health information about WorkCover patients
Health practitioner concerns about disclosures:
• It is considered lawful under the HRA for health care professionals to
disclose health information about a patient’s work related injury to the VWA
or its Agent with the consent granted in their claim form.
WCV's states: That would be lawful if the claimant knew they
were signing a consent to release this information.
Notwithstanding this, if a health care professional has concerns regarding a
patient’s consent for them to discuss their claim with the VWA or its Agent,
they are encouraged to obtain consent through their normal processes from
the patient before discussing their claim.
Professional Code of Ethics and the law:
• Health care professionals have a duty under their professional code of ethics
to maintain the confidentiality of their professional–patient relationship.
However, this duty is not absolute and there are some important exceptions,
including where another law permits the disclosure, such as under the HRA.
• It is the VWA’s view that health care professionals are not in breach
of the law if they provide health information about a patient to the
VWA or its Agents as part of the assessment and management of
the patient’s WorkCover claim in the circumstances outlined above.
WCV's States: Just because its the View of the VWA that healthcare
proffessionals are not in breach of the law is a view only and not lawful.
• The VWA and its Agents seek only to collect health information about a patient
that relates to the management of the patient’s work related injury.
WCV's states: If that is so, then why does the VWA obtain access
to all medical records?
The information contained in this document is protected by copyright.
The Victorian WorkCover Authority encourages the free transfer, copying and printing of the information in
this guidance material if such activities support the purpose for which the material was intended.
WCV's has followed the copyright directions of this document.
The copying of this document was specifically for the support of workcover victims by
informing them of worksafes policies therefore abiding by the copyright act of this
document.
professionals.
It is encouraging your treating doctors to release your medical information
under the views of the VWA.
I would like the VWA to explain to the readers of this blog how they have the
right to demand access to injured workers medical records under the Health
Records Act of Victoria?
This Act was designed to protect the access of this information to the owner
of this information. The only items that the medical practitioner owns is the
paper it is written on but, your doctor does not own the information therefore
it would be a breach of the HRA and the privacy act for this information to be
released to anybody but the owner which the VWA are not!
Any treating doctor would be foolish to release any information based only
on VWA policies as the VWAs views are not law or legal therefore, they would
not stand up in any court in Victoria.
Any Medical practitioner who releases any information without their patients
consent is breaching the Health Records Act, the Privacy act, and their own
ethics.
Injured Workers are not informed of the fact that once they sign their claim
form they have also opened the door for the VWA to access their medical
records and treating Doctors. This needs to be fully explained to all injured
workers before they are directed to sign the claim form by either their
employer or the VWA.
Injured workers should have the right to decide whether or not their medical
records are released to the VWA in full or in part but not at the direction of
the VWA with the threat of non acceptance of your claim if you don't.
Please see the following fact sheet published by the VWA.
This fact sheet is designed to assist health care professionals understand the
law regarding disclosure of health information to the Victorian WorkCover
Authority (VWA) or its WorkCover Agents about a patient’s work related
injury for the purposes of the assessment and management of the patient’s
WorkCover claim under the Accident Compensation Act 1985 (the Act).
The Health Records Act and patient confidentiality:
• The Health Records Act 2001 (Vic) (HRA) allows the VWA to collect health
information from a health care professional about a patient’s work related injury
in a number of circumstances.
• Under the HRA, health care professionals may disclose health information
about a patient to the VWA or its Agents if they have the consent of the patient.
A patient unknowingly consents to such disclosure when they sign
the ‘Authority to Release Medical Information’ on the ‘Worker’s
Claim Form’.
• Under the HRA a health care professional may also disclose health
information about a patient’s work related injury to the VWA or its Agents
without their consent in a number of circumstances relevant to the assessment
and management of the patient’s WorkCover claim, including where:
a. the purpose of disclosing the health information is directly related to the
primary purpose for which information was collected and the worker would
reasonably expect the information to be disclosed for that purpose.
Health care professionals collect health information about a patient for the
primary purpose of treating and managing their injury. The key reasons for
disclosing a patient’s health information to the VWA or its Agents are to:
• provide relevant medical or treatment information about the patient’s
work related injury
• assist in the assessment and management of the patient’s WorkCover claim.
• facilitate the patient’s rehabilitation and return to work.
The VWA considers these to be directly related to the primary
purpose.
WCV's states: What the VWA considers to be directly related to
the primary purpose is not law
It is the VWA’s view that a patient would objectively expect such a disclosure
when they make a claim for compensation.
WCV's States: that again, the VWA's views of expected disclosure
is not law either.
Disclosing health information about WorkCover patients
Health practitioner concerns about disclosures:
• It is considered lawful under the HRA for health care professionals to
disclose health information about a patient’s work related injury to the VWA
or its Agent with the consent granted in their claim form.
WCV's states: That would be lawful if the claimant knew they
were signing a consent to release this information.
Notwithstanding this, if a health care professional has concerns regarding a
patient’s consent for them to discuss their claim with the VWA or its Agent,
they are encouraged to obtain consent through their normal processes from
the patient before discussing their claim.
Professional Code of Ethics and the law:
• Health care professionals have a duty under their professional code of ethics
to maintain the confidentiality of their professional–patient relationship.
However, this duty is not absolute and there are some important exceptions,
including where another law permits the disclosure, such as under the HRA.
• It is the VWA’s view that health care professionals are not in breach
of the law if they provide health information about a patient to the
VWA or its Agents as part of the assessment and management of
the patient’s WorkCover claim in the circumstances outlined above.
WCV's States: Just because its the View of the VWA that healthcare
proffessionals are not in breach of the law is a view only and not lawful.
• The VWA and its Agents seek only to collect health information about a patient
that relates to the management of the patient’s work related injury.
WCV's states: If that is so, then why does the VWA obtain access
to all medical records?
The information contained in this document is protected by copyright.
The Victorian WorkCover Authority encourages the free transfer, copying and printing of the information in
this guidance material if such activities support the purpose for which the material was intended.
WCV's has followed the copyright directions of this document.
The copying of this document was specifically for the support of workcover victims by
informing them of worksafes policies therefore abiding by the copyright act of this
document.
Unions concerned over WorkSafe report
Margarita Windisch, Melbourne 10th August 2008
The Victorian state government is considering far-reaching changes to
workers’ compensation laws.
Peter Hanks QC was commissioned in December 2007 to conduct an inquiry
into the 1985 Accident Compensation Act (WorkCare), which under the former
Liberal government of premier Jeff Kennett government was transformed
into WorkCover in 1992.
According to the July 18 Age, Hanks has recommended 133 changes to be
incorporated into a new scheme called “WorkSafe Victoria”.
Under the Kennett government, a raft of changes to Victoria’s Accident
Compensation Act were introduced between 1992 and 1999 that severely
reduced injured workers’ access to compensation and massively decreased
their entitlements. Thousands of long-term injured workers were thrown
off compensation altogether.
Workers also lost their right to sue under common law negligent employers,
doctors who treat work injuries and manufacturers of faulty equipment.
New changes introduced to WorkCover by consecutive Labor governments
since 1999 have delivered minimal improvements to injured workers, but the
million dollar handouts to employers have continued unabated.
A Victorian Trades Hall Council (VTHC) briefing paper estimates that over
the last four years employers have benefitted from a 45% cut to average
WorkCover premiums, delivering savings to bosses of close to $2 billion.
Workers netted only a total of $45 million.
WorkCover recorded a net profit of $1.17 billion for the financial year ending
June 2007 and boasts on its website of an almost $2 billion dollar reduction
of long-term claim costs since 2001-02.
Geoff Lewin, a member of the Community and Public Sector Union and
participant in the stakeholder reference group (SRG) around the proposed
changes, has raised serious concern over Hanks’ draft recommendations; the
report will be delivered to the WorkCover minister in late August. “Hanks is
proposing that any worker who has been on the maximum of 130 weeks of
compensation will be thrown off the system if there is a demonstrated five
minute work capacity”, he told Green Left Weekly.
A VTHC document claims that Hanks is planning to maintain the 30%
impairment test threshold for psychiatric injuries and the 10% impairment
threshold for most physical injuries.
Lewin told GLW that Hanks proposes to extend the preclusions for stress injuries
put in place by Kennett in 1992 through scrapping benefits for psychological or
psychiatric injury received from any “reasonable management action”.
“The changes suggested by Hanks are worse then those under Kennett and will
in effect exclude most people suffering from stress-related [injuries]”, Lewin said.
The VTHC opposes proposed changes to the return to work provisions that would
remove legislative obligations for employers to provide workers with suitable
employment; instead, the obligations would be replaced by weaker regulations
and guidelines. The draft report proposes reducing the powers of the already
weak Accident Compensation Conciliation Service, which is the first port of call
if a claim is challenged. A review panel would become the final arbiter of disputes.
Lewin believes that this would draw out the process and prolong the process of
testing in court claims that have been denied. Lewin told GLW that having the
Victorian WorkCover Authority conducting the internal review on arbitration
will be detrimental to workers. Lewin said that Victoria’s Labor government
made a serious mistake by appointing a reviewer whose staff come from the
WorkCover Authority or the treasury and finance departments: “The WorkCover
Authority is basically running the inquiry and is not taking into account the
interests of injured workers.” He added: “In February, Hanks asked the SRG
members for issues to be included in a discussion paper to be released.
VTHC provided 33 major issues of which Hanks only included three minor ones
in his public document.” It is still unclear if the government will release the
Hanks report publically. It is possible the final report will go to the Autumn
parliamentary session in 2009.
The VTHC “FixWorkCover” campaign calls for an increase in weekly payments,
coverage of all stress injuries, improved disputes resolution and better return-to-
work rights, an end to discrimination and the inclusion of outworkers in the
compensations scheme.
For more information visit http://www.fixworkcover.org/.
From: Comment & Analysis, Green Left Weekly issue #762 13 August 2008.
The Victorian state government is considering far-reaching changes to
workers’ compensation laws.
Peter Hanks QC was commissioned in December 2007 to conduct an inquiry
into the 1985 Accident Compensation Act (WorkCare), which under the former
Liberal government of premier Jeff Kennett government was transformed
into WorkCover in 1992.
According to the July 18 Age, Hanks has recommended 133 changes to be
incorporated into a new scheme called “WorkSafe Victoria”.
Under the Kennett government, a raft of changes to Victoria’s Accident
Compensation Act were introduced between 1992 and 1999 that severely
reduced injured workers’ access to compensation and massively decreased
their entitlements. Thousands of long-term injured workers were thrown
off compensation altogether.
Workers also lost their right to sue under common law negligent employers,
doctors who treat work injuries and manufacturers of faulty equipment.
New changes introduced to WorkCover by consecutive Labor governments
since 1999 have delivered minimal improvements to injured workers, but the
million dollar handouts to employers have continued unabated.
A Victorian Trades Hall Council (VTHC) briefing paper estimates that over
the last four years employers have benefitted from a 45% cut to average
WorkCover premiums, delivering savings to bosses of close to $2 billion.
Workers netted only a total of $45 million.
WorkCover recorded a net profit of $1.17 billion for the financial year ending
June 2007 and boasts on its website of an almost $2 billion dollar reduction
of long-term claim costs since 2001-02.
Geoff Lewin, a member of the Community and Public Sector Union and
participant in the stakeholder reference group (SRG) around the proposed
changes, has raised serious concern over Hanks’ draft recommendations; the
report will be delivered to the WorkCover minister in late August. “Hanks is
proposing that any worker who has been on the maximum of 130 weeks of
compensation will be thrown off the system if there is a demonstrated five
minute work capacity”, he told Green Left Weekly.
A VTHC document claims that Hanks is planning to maintain the 30%
impairment test threshold for psychiatric injuries and the 10% impairment
threshold for most physical injuries.
Lewin told GLW that Hanks proposes to extend the preclusions for stress injuries
put in place by Kennett in 1992 through scrapping benefits for psychological or
psychiatric injury received from any “reasonable management action”.
“The changes suggested by Hanks are worse then those under Kennett and will
in effect exclude most people suffering from stress-related [injuries]”, Lewin said.
The VTHC opposes proposed changes to the return to work provisions that would
remove legislative obligations for employers to provide workers with suitable
employment; instead, the obligations would be replaced by weaker regulations
and guidelines. The draft report proposes reducing the powers of the already
weak Accident Compensation Conciliation Service, which is the first port of call
if a claim is challenged. A review panel would become the final arbiter of disputes.
Lewin believes that this would draw out the process and prolong the process of
testing in court claims that have been denied. Lewin told GLW that having the
Victorian WorkCover Authority conducting the internal review on arbitration
will be detrimental to workers. Lewin said that Victoria’s Labor government
made a serious mistake by appointing a reviewer whose staff come from the
WorkCover Authority or the treasury and finance departments: “The WorkCover
Authority is basically running the inquiry and is not taking into account the
interests of injured workers.” He added: “In February, Hanks asked the SRG
members for issues to be included in a discussion paper to be released.
VTHC provided 33 major issues of which Hanks only included three minor ones
in his public document.” It is still unclear if the government will release the
Hanks report publically. It is possible the final report will go to the Autumn
parliamentary session in 2009.
The VTHC “FixWorkCover” campaign calls for an increase in weekly payments,
coverage of all stress injuries, improved disputes resolution and better return-to-
work rights, an end to discrimination and the inclusion of outworkers in the
compensations scheme.
For more information visit http://www.fixworkcover.org/.
From: Comment & Analysis, Green Left Weekly issue #762 13 August 2008.
Saturday, 9 August 2008
WorkSafe satisfied with Hepburn Shire bullying policy
Posted Tue Feb 26, 2008 2:48pm AEDT ABC News
WorkSafe is satisfied with the efforts the Hepburn Shire have made to address
bullying and harassment.
Last year the authority investigated the claims that a former employee was
bullied and harassed.
While the allegations were not substantiated, WorkSafe asked the shire to
improve its policy and procedures.
WorkSafe's spokesman Michael Birt says the safety improvement notice that
was issued to the shire has now been lifted.
"Workplace health and safety is an important issue in any workplace," he said.
"It's one thing to have policies to ensure things are done safely, but of course
what we really want is for people to use those policies, build them into their
culture and make it a part of a working life, not just dust it off when there's
an emergency or some sort of crisis has hit."
WVC's:The above news release is typical of how worksafe handle bullying claims.
Pay attention to the fact that after an investigation worksafe issued a workplace
safety notice but also state that the claim of bullying made by the worker was
unsubstantiated? These "Unsubstantiated" claims seem to be worksafes
new and now usual outcome/senario if you are claiming bullying or stress
related injury.
Our question here is: If the bullying claims were unsubstantiated then why did
worksafe issue a safety notice and request that this employer improve its
polices and procedures? Either the worker was bullied or he/she wasnt so
which one is it worksafe? or Does worksafe issue notices for the hell of it?
Worksafes lack of concern for workplace bullying is obvious by their lack
of competent investigations into workplace bullying claims.
WorkSafe is satisfied with the efforts the Hepburn Shire have made to address
bullying and harassment.
Last year the authority investigated the claims that a former employee was
bullied and harassed.
While the allegations were not substantiated, WorkSafe asked the shire to
improve its policy and procedures.
WorkSafe's spokesman Michael Birt says the safety improvement notice that
was issued to the shire has now been lifted.
"Workplace health and safety is an important issue in any workplace," he said.
"It's one thing to have policies to ensure things are done safely, but of course
what we really want is for people to use those policies, build them into their
culture and make it a part of a working life, not just dust it off when there's
an emergency or some sort of crisis has hit."
WVC's:The above news release is typical of how worksafe handle bullying claims.
Pay attention to the fact that after an investigation worksafe issued a workplace
safety notice but also state that the claim of bullying made by the worker was
unsubstantiated? These "Unsubstantiated" claims seem to be worksafes
new and now usual outcome/senario if you are claiming bullying or stress
related injury.
Our question here is: If the bullying claims were unsubstantiated then why did
worksafe issue a safety notice and request that this employer improve its
polices and procedures? Either the worker was bullied or he/she wasnt so
which one is it worksafe? or Does worksafe issue notices for the hell of it?
Worksafes lack of concern for workplace bullying is obvious by their lack
of competent investigations into workplace bullying claims.
Wednesday, 6 August 2008
New return to work guides for workers and employers
WORKSafe Victoria has released new guidance to assist employers and
injured workers with the return to work process.
The new publications will help employers and injured workers
understand their obligations and the steps needed to get workers
back to safe and sustainable work.
Under the Accident Compensation Act 1985, injured workers and
employers have obligations.
In particular, employers must provide suitable employment where an
injured worker has some capacity for work, and it is critical that
they regularly communicate with the injured worker and their doctor
throughout the rehabilitation and return to work process.
Similarly, injured workers must make every reasonable effort to return
to work in suitable employment and participate in assessments to
determine their capacity for work, rehabilitation progress, and
future employment prospects.
The Director of WorkSafe’s Return to Work Division, Michelle Zorbas,
said that with the number of workers compensation claims averaging
about 30,000 per year, returning injured workers back to work has to
be a priority.
“Helping them return to work in a safe and sustainable way not
only assists in the early recovery and rehabilitation of the worker,
it reduces productivity losses and minimises the impact on an
employer’s workplace injury insurance costs.
“Both the employer and injured worker play a vital part in this
process , which we know can sometimes be difficult.
“This is why the new guidance material was developed - to help
employers and injured workers understand what they need to do and
where to get further help if needed.”
The new guidance includes:
Returning to Work: A Guide for Injured Workers.
Suitable Employment for Injured Workers: A step by step guide.
Return to Work Plan and Offer of Suitable Employment forms.
Return to Work Inspectors fact sheet.
Manufacturers Monthly - Australia's leading manufacturing
news website. 22-Jul-2008.
WCV's: I wonder how much these publications cost to be developed?
More money wasted on useless publications which is not supporting
Injured workers in anyway!
WCV's conducted a poll recently on the issue of return to work policies and
we have found that 100% of the voters said that they were not offered a
return to work!
So to be fair to worksafe we here at WVC's are asking worksafe to supply
their statistic's on RTW's of how many of those claimants were returned to
their usual employment using the above quoted claim numbers of 30,000
claimants per year?
injured workers with the return to work process.
The new publications will help employers and injured workers
understand their obligations and the steps needed to get workers
back to safe and sustainable work.
Under the Accident Compensation Act 1985, injured workers and
employers have obligations.
In particular, employers must provide suitable employment where an
injured worker has some capacity for work, and it is critical that
they regularly communicate with the injured worker and their doctor
throughout the rehabilitation and return to work process.
Similarly, injured workers must make every reasonable effort to return
to work in suitable employment and participate in assessments to
determine their capacity for work, rehabilitation progress, and
future employment prospects.
The Director of WorkSafe’s Return to Work Division, Michelle Zorbas,
said that with the number of workers compensation claims averaging
about 30,000 per year, returning injured workers back to work has to
be a priority.
“Helping them return to work in a safe and sustainable way not
only assists in the early recovery and rehabilitation of the worker,
it reduces productivity losses and minimises the impact on an
employer’s workplace injury insurance costs.
“Both the employer and injured worker play a vital part in this
process , which we know can sometimes be difficult.
“This is why the new guidance material was developed - to help
employers and injured workers understand what they need to do and
where to get further help if needed.”
The new guidance includes:
Returning to Work: A Guide for Injured Workers.
Suitable Employment for Injured Workers: A step by step guide.
Return to Work Plan and Offer of Suitable Employment forms.
Return to Work Inspectors fact sheet.
Manufacturers Monthly - Australia's leading manufacturing
news website. 22-Jul-2008.
WCV's: I wonder how much these publications cost to be developed?
More money wasted on useless publications which is not supporting
Injured workers in anyway!
WCV's conducted a poll recently on the issue of return to work policies and
we have found that 100% of the voters said that they were not offered a
return to work!
So to be fair to worksafe we here at WVC's are asking worksafe to supply
their statistic's on RTW's of how many of those claimants were returned to
their usual employment using the above quoted claim numbers of 30,000
claimants per year?
Sunday, 3 August 2008
The Governments Review of the Accident Compensation Act 1985
In December last year the state government announced that a
review of the 1985 Accident Compensation Act would be
conducted by Mr Peter Hanks QC. In making the announcement,
the Minister for WorkCover, Tim Holding declared:
"Victoria's WorkCover scheme... the best in Australia, offering
generous benefits and good return-to-work outcomes for injured
workers as well as low premiums for employers."
This is not an accurate observation by the Minister. To be
injured at work is bad enough, but to be injured in Victoria
is even worse.
WorkCover in Victoria holds the record for rejecting new claims
by injured workers. It rejects 14.1%, yet in Queensland only
3.8 % are rejected.
Mr Hanks has finished his review (June 2008) and he will give his
report to the Minister in August.
He will make at least 130 recommendations to change WorkCover.
If the government adopts many of his recommendations the WorkCover
scheme will suddenly get a whole lot worse.
WorkCover is the most profitable system of workers compensation in
Australia. It makes a profit of more that $1 billion a year and
pays more than $700 million a year into state government coffers.
Since 2004 it's cut employers' premiums by 45% saving them $2 billion.
Under the Hanks recommendations premiums will be cut by another
6% - reducing even further the funds available to care for injured
workers.
Despite WorkCover's profits and its gifts to employers, it still
fails to provide quality care and financial support for injured
workers.
It's time to do something. Instead of making WorkCover worse for
workers, the government needs to make it better.
We want every Victorian to let the government know that it's time
WorkCover was for workers, not for employers.
Cut and paste this address and to send a message to the government: http://fixworkcover.org/sendletter.php
title='Help fix WorkCover' border='0'>
review of the 1985 Accident Compensation Act would be
conducted by Mr Peter Hanks QC. In making the announcement,
the Minister for WorkCover, Tim Holding declared:
"Victoria's WorkCover scheme... the best in Australia, offering
generous benefits and good return-to-work outcomes for injured
workers as well as low premiums for employers."
This is not an accurate observation by the Minister. To be
injured at work is bad enough, but to be injured in Victoria
is even worse.
WorkCover in Victoria holds the record for rejecting new claims
by injured workers. It rejects 14.1%, yet in Queensland only
3.8 % are rejected.
Mr Hanks has finished his review (June 2008) and he will give his
report to the Minister in August.
He will make at least 130 recommendations to change WorkCover.
If the government adopts many of his recommendations the WorkCover
scheme will suddenly get a whole lot worse.
WorkCover is the most profitable system of workers compensation in
Australia. It makes a profit of more that $1 billion a year and
pays more than $700 million a year into state government coffers.
Since 2004 it's cut employers' premiums by 45% saving them $2 billion.
Under the Hanks recommendations premiums will be cut by another
6% - reducing even further the funds available to care for injured
workers.
Despite WorkCover's profits and its gifts to employers, it still
fails to provide quality care and financial support for injured
workers.
It's time to do something. Instead of making WorkCover worse for
workers, the government needs to make it better.
We want every Victorian to let the government know that it's time
WorkCover was for workers, not for employers.
Cut and paste this address and to send a message to the government: http://fixworkcover.org/sendletter.php
title='Help fix WorkCover' border='0'>
Monday, 28 July 2008
Workcover cuts will hurt injured workers
Media Release , March 19 2008
Changes to Workcover set for debate in Parliament in April will have harsh
consequences for injured workers in South Australia.
Research Fellow at Uni SA’s Hawke Research Institute, Dr Kevin Purse,
says the proposed changes under the Workers Rehabilitation and
Compensation (Scheme Review) Amendment Bill 2008 are a
huge step backwards and would shift the cost burden for injuries
at work from industry to injured workers, their families and the
taxpayer.
Dr Purse says the most disturbing aspects of the Bill for injured workers
are a proposed step-down that will cut workers compensation
payments from 100 per cent of their salaries to just 80 per cent
after only 13 weeks and a proposal to throw all but the
catastrophically injured off the system after two and a half years.
“It’s pretty clear that the management of Workcover has not been
up to scratch,” Dr Purse says.
“Despite recommendations for improvement from the 2002 Stanley
Review, Workcover seems to have a chronic inability to manage
critical return-to-work processes effectively.
“If carried, this new Bill will see vulnerable workers and their families
bear the burden of Workcover’s ineffectual management by reducing
their income support at a time when they are most in need.”
He says the changes would not only slash entitlements to injured
workers but also dramatically undermine their right to challenge
Workcover claims decisions.“The Bill contains a proposal that would
allow for all weekly payments to be discontinued in the event of a
claims dispute,” he says.“This really does leave workers in a very
disadvantaged position with no income at all where a dispute with
Workcover arises.”
Dr Purse says a whole range of factors included in the Bill will
undermine the integrity of the Workcover system including
proposals in relation to medical panels, payments for non-economic
loss and the dispute resolution system.“If we’re not careful we could
end up with a Clayton’s scheme.”
“When you look at why Workcover’s not working well for injured
workers, it’s clear that the whole culture of the organisation needs
to change, starting from the top,” Dr Purse says.
“There are many ways to improve the system. A serious reconsideration of
the outsourcing of the claims management system is long overdue, and there
is a pressing need for action on the retraining front.“There is no doubt that
reform is needed but the government’s Bill does nothing to address
the real problems within Workcover – it will only add to the pain and
disenchantment with Labor.”
“Injured workers overwhelmingly want to return to work but in the case of
serious injury they do need support to find their way back into the workforce.
More than ever Workcover needs innovative policies to assist injured workers
and their employers to achieve the best outcomes.
“An improved bottom line for Workcover should not come at the
expense of workers, nor does it require wholesale legislative change.
The starting point should be better administration of the scheme
and this is where the government should be focusing its attention.”
Contacts for interview
Dr Kevin Purse (08) 8443 9946 email kevin.purse@unisa.edu.au
WCV's thoughts : The only reason for workcover to be changing the legislation
like this, is so that Centrelink can pick up the catastrophically injured workers
via DSP pensions and workcover doesn't have to pay for them indefinitely.
It also makes their budgets look alot better, if centrelink is picking up the tab!
No wonder workcover can claim such a large profit margin!
Workcover in Victoria already uses the non payment/denial of benefits
in disputes until settlement and it does effect the injured worker financially
and as Dr Price has stated: It happens when we need the support the most.
WCV's recent poll of injured workers showed that 100% of those that voted
all said that they have been personally financially effected from their
workplace injury and now the government wants to reduce payments again!
Why?
Why have workcover if you are not prepared to run it fairly and justly.
Workers would be better off if they insured themselves privately for workplace
injuries and the government paid a rebate. At least this way injured workers
with insurance could be back at work with their injuries fixed sooner, rather
than years later as it is with workcover.
Dr Price has hit the nail on the head with his criticisms of the managements
of workcover be it Victorian or south Australian. Its obvious to victims of
workplace injuries that until the managements in each state are cleaned
up and the dead wood disposed of, these discriminatory practices will
continue.
Why are legislation changes always at the expense of the injured workers?
Changes to Workcover set for debate in Parliament in April will have harsh
consequences for injured workers in South Australia.
Research Fellow at Uni SA’s Hawke Research Institute, Dr Kevin Purse,
says the proposed changes under the Workers Rehabilitation and
Compensation (Scheme Review) Amendment Bill 2008 are a
huge step backwards and would shift the cost burden for injuries
at work from industry to injured workers, their families and the
taxpayer.
Dr Purse says the most disturbing aspects of the Bill for injured workers
are a proposed step-down that will cut workers compensation
payments from 100 per cent of their salaries to just 80 per cent
after only 13 weeks and a proposal to throw all but the
catastrophically injured off the system after two and a half years.
“It’s pretty clear that the management of Workcover has not been
up to scratch,” Dr Purse says.
“Despite recommendations for improvement from the 2002 Stanley
Review, Workcover seems to have a chronic inability to manage
critical return-to-work processes effectively.
“If carried, this new Bill will see vulnerable workers and their families
bear the burden of Workcover’s ineffectual management by reducing
their income support at a time when they are most in need.”
He says the changes would not only slash entitlements to injured
workers but also dramatically undermine their right to challenge
Workcover claims decisions.“The Bill contains a proposal that would
allow for all weekly payments to be discontinued in the event of a
claims dispute,” he says.“This really does leave workers in a very
disadvantaged position with no income at all where a dispute with
Workcover arises.”
Dr Purse says a whole range of factors included in the Bill will
undermine the integrity of the Workcover system including
proposals in relation to medical panels, payments for non-economic
loss and the dispute resolution system.“If we’re not careful we could
end up with a Clayton’s scheme.”
“When you look at why Workcover’s not working well for injured
workers, it’s clear that the whole culture of the organisation needs
to change, starting from the top,” Dr Purse says.
“There are many ways to improve the system. A serious reconsideration of
the outsourcing of the claims management system is long overdue, and there
is a pressing need for action on the retraining front.“There is no doubt that
reform is needed but the government’s Bill does nothing to address
the real problems within Workcover – it will only add to the pain and
disenchantment with Labor.”
“Injured workers overwhelmingly want to return to work but in the case of
serious injury they do need support to find their way back into the workforce.
More than ever Workcover needs innovative policies to assist injured workers
and their employers to achieve the best outcomes.
“An improved bottom line for Workcover should not come at the
expense of workers, nor does it require wholesale legislative change.
The starting point should be better administration of the scheme
and this is where the government should be focusing its attention.”
Contacts for interview
Dr Kevin Purse (08) 8443 9946 email kevin.purse@unisa.edu.au
WCV's thoughts : The only reason for workcover to be changing the legislation
like this, is so that Centrelink can pick up the catastrophically injured workers
via DSP pensions and workcover doesn't have to pay for them indefinitely.
It also makes their budgets look alot better, if centrelink is picking up the tab!
No wonder workcover can claim such a large profit margin!
Workcover in Victoria already uses the non payment/denial of benefits
in disputes until settlement and it does effect the injured worker financially
and as Dr Price has stated: It happens when we need the support the most.
WCV's recent poll of injured workers showed that 100% of those that voted
all said that they have been personally financially effected from their
workplace injury and now the government wants to reduce payments again!
Why?
Why have workcover if you are not prepared to run it fairly and justly.
Workers would be better off if they insured themselves privately for workplace
injuries and the government paid a rebate. At least this way injured workers
with insurance could be back at work with their injuries fixed sooner, rather
than years later as it is with workcover.
Dr Price has hit the nail on the head with his criticisms of the managements
of workcover be it Victorian or south Australian. Its obvious to victims of
workplace injuries that until the managements in each state are cleaned
up and the dead wood disposed of, these discriminatory practices will
continue.
Why are legislation changes always at the expense of the injured workers?
Saturday, 26 July 2008
Vic campaign launched to tackle workplace bullying
The Victorian Government has launched a campaign to tackle bullying and
occupational violence in Victoria, which it estimates cost business $3 bn a year
through lost productivity and absenteeism.
At the launch of the campaign at Parliament House, WorkCover Minister Rob
Hulls said both the number and the cost of bullying claims are on the rise.
"Workplace bullying claims made to the Victorian WorkCover Authority
totalled $57 m in 2001–02, up from $51 m in 2000 –01," he said.
A Guidance Note has been developed to provide straight forward information
on preventative measures for bullying and workplace violence. This note is also
expected to limit the physical and psychological effects bulling has on individuals,
families and also productivity.
Hulls said the Guidance Note made it clear that bullying should never be
"part of the job"."Employers and employees need to work together to identify
the factors that increase the risk of bullying or occupational violence, and
employers need to educate themselves and the workforce about acceptable
behaviour," said Hulls.
The VWA received 1,148 claims for workplace bullying and harassment
incidents from 2001-02.
Issue 21, 21 February 2003
occupational violence in Victoria, which it estimates cost business $3 bn a year
through lost productivity and absenteeism.
At the launch of the campaign at Parliament House, WorkCover Minister Rob
Hulls said both the number and the cost of bullying claims are on the rise.
"Workplace bullying claims made to the Victorian WorkCover Authority
totalled $57 m in 2001–02, up from $51 m in 2000 –01," he said.
A Guidance Note has been developed to provide straight forward information
on preventative measures for bullying and workplace violence. This note is also
expected to limit the physical and psychological effects bulling has on individuals,
families and also productivity.
Hulls said the Guidance Note made it clear that bullying should never be
"part of the job"."Employers and employees need to work together to identify
the factors that increase the risk of bullying or occupational violence, and
employers need to educate themselves and the workforce about acceptable
behaviour," said Hulls.
The VWA received 1,148 claims for workplace bullying and harassment
incidents from 2001-02.
Issue 21, 21 February 2003
AMA 4 Guides Impairment Assessment - Spinal Surgery
WCV: If you have a spinal assessment coming up then you need to read
the following document. It explains the process used to access your spinal
injuries. Read it carefully and know what to expect from them and
your rights in assessments. "Knowledge is power".
Impairment Assessment Training E-Newsletter Special Edition
Issue date: Friday 7 September 2007
In The Courts
In our August edition a paper clarifying post-spinal surgery spinal impairment
assessment following the handing down of the Mountain Pine Furniture P/L
v Taylor appeal decision was promised .
This paper has now been released by the Spine Reference Group.
Clarification Regards Post-spinal Surgery Spinal Impairment Assessment
(September 2007)
In the initial instructions regarding spinal assessment for the Stream 1
Spine Impairment Assessment Course, the Spine Reference Group pointed
out that there was an imminent Court of Appeal decision on how to assess
spinal injuries which had been treated by surgery, and that we would release
a clarification via the training authority (AMA Victoria) once this occurs.
The Court of Appeal judgment in the case of Mountain Pine
Furniture P/L v Taylor delivered on 6 July 2007 upheld the
judgment of Mr Justice Bongiorno (Supreme Court decision)
that when an impairment assessment for the spine is conducted
in accordance with AMA 4, Chapter Three, DRE method, the
effects of surgery must be disregarded.
On 15 August 2007, the Minister for Finance, Workcover and the Transport
Accident Commission released a press release indicating the relevant statutes
would be amended on the basis of equity. These teaching materials will have
to be altered again once the amendments become law .
Until the foreshadowed amendments become law, the following instructions
outline how spinal injury cases treated by surgery are to be assessed.
VWA and Public Liability Assessments
This decision and the following instruction impacts your practice as an
Independent Impairment Assessor conducting assessments in accordance
with the Accident Compensation Act 1985 (VWA) and Wrongs Act 1958
(Public Liability) in the following manner.
The Guides state: “With the Injury Model surgery to treat an impairment
does not modify the original impairment estimate, which remains the same
in spite of any change in signs or symptoms that may follow the surgery and
irrespective of whether the patient has a favorable or unfavorable response to
treatment.” (3/100)
The judgment ruled that the degree of impairment of the worker must be
based on their pre-surgery state and the effects of surgery- whether
successful or unsuccessful-should be ignored. The judgment indicates that an
assessor must ensure that the effects of surgery are carefully noted so that
they can be consciously disregarded. If the worker’s condition has improved
following surgery then that improvement is to be disregarded.
Example: If a worker had documented radiculopathy before surgery and
the surgery “caused” a resolution of the radiculopathy, the impairment would
be DRE III (pre-surgical state). If the worker’s condition has become worse
following surgery to the extent that they have a higher DRE Category
impairment, the assessor must make a formal finding as to whether that
change in condition leading to a higher impairment was actually “caused by”
the surgery. If it was, then it is to be disregarded.
Example: If a worker had no documented radiculopathy before surgery
and the surgery “caused” a radiculopathy, the impairment would be
DRE II (pre-surgical state). If the worker’s condition has become worse
following surgery as part of the natural progression of the pre-surgery state
and not “caused by” the surgery, then any increase in impairment is to be
regarded as part of the original impairment assessment and pre-surgical state.
Example: If a worker had no documented radiculopathy before surgery
and following surgery there were clinical signs of radiculopathy, which the
assessor is satisfied was not “caused by” the surgery, the impairment would
be DRE III (regarded as pre-surgical state). The term “caused by” comes
directly from the judgment of Justice Bongiorno (which was subsequently
confirmed by the Court of Appeal) who said that “in this instance the word
follow is synonymous with caused by”.
Please note that “caused by” the surgery does not require an assessor to make
a finding based on negligence or error in the performance of the surgery, nor
does it imply that the assessor made such a finding. The finding is simply a
statement of opinion as to the cause of the worker’s changed state following
surgery, which is required as part of the process as indicated by the Court.
The judgment also noted that the assessor must assess the worker’s condition
at the time of his/her examination for the purposes of reaching a decision that
the worker’s condition has stabilised, so that a conclusion can then be made
that the assessed (pre-surgical state) impairment is permanent.
For the purpose of Workcover and the Wrongs Act the impairment
assessment process is therefore:
1. Document / identify the worker’s pre-surgery state.
2. Does the worker’s condition / injury fit the injury model? (DRE method of
impairment assessment). ie: Is the worker’s condition one of those listed in
table 70? If so, then the injury model (DRE method) should be used.
3. Document the post-surgery state. Identify whether there are any changes
in the worker’s signs and symptoms post-surgery compared with the pre-
surgery state.
4. If there is a change following surgery, decide whether the change
(improvement or deterioration) was actually “caused by” the surgery
so that it can be consciously disregarded.
5. Identify the worker’s current status (ie: post-surgery). Is it stable?
If yes, go ahead to assess impairment.
6. Assess the degree of impairment according to the worker’s pre-surgery
state.
To carry out the impairment assessment the assessor must have reliable
medical information about the worker’s pre-surgery state. If the assessor
considers further information is required, then the necessary information
must be obtained through the referring party.
There are a number of specific questions which arise from the
Court’s decisions.
1. How does an examiner determine the pre-operative condition
of a spinal injury, where they have not seen the person before
surgery and are faced with differing opinions in reports?
From time to time assessors may be presented with multiple reports
describing conflicting opinions regarding an injured person’s pre-operative
spinal related symptoms and signs. It is up to the assessor to make his/her
decision in such cases on balance, based on their assessment of all of the
available information. This will require weighing up of the reports and making
a decision as to what the injured person’s impairment most probably was in the
pre-operative period as close to the operation as possible.
In so doing, it is important for the assessor to describe their reasoning
and the issues which they have considered. These may include (but are
not limited to) which reports are contemporaneous to the immediate pre-
operative time, consistency of information in reports, expertise of the
examiners, and treating doctor and specialist reports.
In each case of assessment, it is up to the person performing
the assessment to make the decision on such issues, but in
doing so they must make their reasoning clear and transparent.
2. What is considered “spinal surgery”?
There is no definition in the Guides of “spinal surgery”.
There are many procedures (both diagnostic and therapeutic) on the spine
which would not normally be considered as spinal surgery. These include a
variety of injection techniques (such as facet joint and epidural injections,
diagnostic nerve blocks and nerve root injections) and procedures involving
a variety of probes (such as radiofrequency denervation and thermonuclear
annuloplasty).
The view of the reference group is that surgery means a formal incision and
either an open or arthroscopic surgical procedure resulting in anatomical
change. Examples include, but are not necessarily limited to, laminectomy,
discectomy, fusion and disc replacement procedures.
The reference group also considers that the surgical application of
a “halo brace” to immobilise an unstable cervical fracture injury should be
considered as spinal surgery.
In each case of assessment, it is up to the person performing the assessment
to make the decision on such issues, but in doing so they must make their
reasoning clear and transparent.
3. How do you assess injuries in different regions of the spine,
one of which has been surgically treated?
In traumatic injuries it is not uncommon to have different regions of the spine
affected. One injury may require surgery, where the injury of another spinal
region may not require surgery. If the injuries apply to different spinal regions
(refer last paragraph page 95), the impairment for each region must be
assessed separately. Section 3.3f (Specific Procedures and Directions) advises in
point 8 on page 101 that “If more than one spine region is impaired,
determine the impairment of the other region(s). Combine the regional
impairments using the Combined Values Chart (p.322) to express the patient’s
total spine impairment. “
Example: A patient suffers a spinal injury which includes a central cord
syndrome in the cervical spine, as well as a vertebral fracture injury in the
lower thoracic spine. There is no fracture in the cervical region and no need
for surgery at that level. The lower thoracic fracture required immediate
surgery.
The decision in the case of Mountain Pine Furniture P/L .v. Taylorrequires
that t he thoracic injury would be assessed according to the thoracolumbar
DRE applicable to the pre-surgery state. As surgery has not been performed
on the cervical spine, the injury at that level would be assessed according to
the cervicothoracic DRE applicable at the time of the impairment assessment.
The impairments applicable to the DREs of the two regions would be combined
to provide the final total spine impairment.
4. What about the assessment of related impaired bladder or
bowel function in thoracolumbar or cervicothoracic spine injuries,
when there is no pre-surgery verifiable lower extremity impairment
which meets the criteria for DRE categories VI or VII or VIII?
(see footnotes to Table 73 and 74 and references on page 105 and 107 of
chapter 3)
In this situation the Guides require the impairment assessment for impaired
bladder or bowel function to be carried out in accordance with Chapter Eleven
(the Urinary and Reproductive Systems) and Chapter Ten (the Digestive System)
respectively. Impairment is then combined with the DRE Category II – IV
impairment.
It should be noted that in the reference group’s opinion, this is a relatively
rare situation. Assessment of impairment in accordance with Chapters Ten
and/or Eleven, need to be performed by assessors who have successfully
completed the modules on the Urinary and Reproductive Systems and the
Digestive system. There are differing ways of interpreting what the footnotes
and references apply to in terms of the Mountain Pine Furniture P/L .v. Taylor
decision. One view is that the use of the criteria of Chapters Ten and/or Eleven
in conjunction with the DRE method or Injury Model would indicate their use is
limited to impairment not “caused by” surgery.
It would follow from this that the impairment due to the current or post surgical
bowel or bladder impairment should be combined with the pre-surgery DRE
Category impairment, only when the symptoms of impaired bowel or bladder
were not “caused by” surgery. ie. the symptoms of impaired bowel or bladder
function existed before the surgery.
A contrary view is: the bowel or bladder impairment in this situation is not
related to how the DRE category impairment is determined pre or post-surgery
and they are impairments assessed outside of the Injury (DRE) model, the
bowel or bladder impairments should be combined with the pre-surgery
DRE Category impairment, even if the symptoms of impaired bowel or
bladder function only arose after surgery.
As there is no legal precedent in this situation and the Court decisions did not
specifically address this issue, the spine reference group can not make specific
recommendations – other than to give the above information.
5. Are all spinal cord injuries assessed in accordance with
Chapter Three?
Most spinal cord injuries can be assessed in accordance with Chapter Three
(The Musculoskeletal System). Spinal cord injuries assessed in accordance
with the DRE method are covered by the Court rulings– ie they must be
assessed as they were pre-surgery.
The spine and neurology reference groups have agreed that in spinal
cord injury cases, sometimes the expert assessor will also assess the
impairment in accordance with Chapter 4 (The Nervous System) and
then use the higher of the two assessments. In cases where Chapter 4
is used the correct assessment is of the post-surgical state, with the
person being assessed as they are at the time of the assessment.
Example: A person with a ventilator dependent high cervical cord injury
assessed under the DRE method (Category VIII combined with V results
in an 81% whole person impairment), where as under the Chapter 4
(The Nervous System) assessment, Table 16 in Section 4.3c can result in
a 90+% whole person impairment for “patient has no capacity for
spontaneous respiration”. In this case the person is best assessed
under the Chapter Four.
6. What about spinal injury without surgery?
In cases of spinal injuries which have not been treated by surgery,
the person’s impairment must be assessed as they are at the time of the
impairment assessment examination.
TAC Position on Assessments NB. The following is the TAC position
concerning assessments.
The Transport Accident Act (TAA) specifies the requirement for
stabilisation (Section 46A) in respect of an impairment determination.
Subsection 46A(1) provides direction to the TAC in respect of how and
when an impairment assessment is to be made and what is to be assessed,
which is the stabilised injury.
Unlike the Accident Compensation Act (ACA) the TAA relies upon the AMA
Guides to delineate classes of injured persons between those who have a
critical requirement for long term benefits and those whose need for long
term financial assistance are not as critical on the basis of ongoing physical
or psychiatric impairment.
This requirement was the subject of a Supreme Court decision and careful
analysis in Bayliss v Transport Accident Commission (2004) 9 VR 267 B.
The TAC had sought the Court of Appeal’s permission to intervene in the
dispute in respect of Mountain Pine Furniture P/L .v. Taylor to allow further
agitation of issues in regard to how TAC legislation operates in conjunction
with the AMA Guides and specifically the Guides instruction in respect of
spine impairments on page 100. Mr. Taylor’s counsel opposed the request
for intervention.
The Court of Appeal rejected the TAC’s application to intervene on the
basis that the Taylor appeal was confined to Accident Compensation Act
considerations. The appeal did not consider the legislation under which
the TAC operates. The Court of Appeal’s ruling rejecting the TAC’s
application to intervene is contained in the court transcript and forms
no part of the court’s judgment.
As a result the Supreme Court’s decision in Bayliss v TAC regarding the
TAA’s requirement for post stabilisation/surgical assessment of spinal
impairment continues to be relevant and provides the appropriate legal
guidance on this issue.
The approach to be applied for spinal assessments using the injury model
in the AMA Guides 4 th edition is to assess the injured person’s current
post surgical impairment after the injuries have stabilised – ie at the time
of the injured person’s assessment.
Taken from: Impairment Assessment Training.
LEGISLATION TO ENSURE EQUITY FOR INJURED VICTORIANS
FROM THE MINISTER FOR TAC ; MR TIM HOLDING
DATE: Tuesday, August 14, 2007
The Minister for Finance, WorkCover and the Transport Accident Commission
(TAC), Tim Holding, has announced that the Government will legislate to
ensure that injured Victorian workers and people injured in a
transport accident will continue to be appropriately compensated.
Mr Holding said the announcement followed the Court of Appeal’s recent
decision in the case of Mountain Pine Furniture v Taylor, which deals
with the way spinal injuries are assessed for the purposes of lump sum
compensation.
“The Government has carefully considered the implications of this decision
and what it will mean for the compensation schemes administered by the
Victorian WorkCover Authority (VWA) and the TAC,” he said.
“In particular, the Government is concerned that the decision will lead to
inequities in the assessment of permanent impairment, both between differing
types of injuries, and between the TAC and VWA schemes.“As a result,
the Government intends to introduce legislation to provide clarity and
ensure equity is maintained for all injured workers and transport accident
victims, both past and future, in the fair assessment of permanent impairment.”
Mr Holding said that while the Court of Appeal upheld the Supreme
Court’s original decision, it nevertheless indicated concern that the
American Medical Association Guides at the centre of the matter were confusing,
even for doctors, in their application.
“The decision by the Court of Appeal overturned the long-standing and accepted
practice of providing compensation on the basis of an injured person’s permanent
Impairment, which is arrived at after they have undergone any surgery (or other
remedial treatment) and the injury has stabilised, no matter what the injury,”
he said.“Accordingly, the Government will introduce this legislation as soon
as practicable.”
DATE: Tuesday, August 14, 2007
The Minister for Finance, WorkCover and the Transport Accident Commission
(TAC), Tim Holding, has announced that the Government will legislate to
ensure that injured Victorian workers and people injured in a
transport accident will continue to be appropriately compensated.
Mr Holding said the announcement followed the Court of Appeal’s recent
decision in the case of Mountain Pine Furniture v Taylor, which deals
with the way spinal injuries are assessed for the purposes of lump sum
compensation.
“The Government has carefully considered the implications of this decision
and what it will mean for the compensation schemes administered by the
Victorian WorkCover Authority (VWA) and the TAC,” he said.
“In particular, the Government is concerned that the decision will lead to
inequities in the assessment of permanent impairment, both between differing
types of injuries, and between the TAC and VWA schemes.“As a result,
the Government intends to introduce legislation to provide clarity and
ensure equity is maintained for all injured workers and transport accident
victims, both past and future, in the fair assessment of permanent impairment.”
Mr Holding said that while the Court of Appeal upheld the Supreme
Court’s original decision, it nevertheless indicated concern that the
American Medical Association Guides at the centre of the matter were confusing,
even for doctors, in their application.
“The decision by the Court of Appeal overturned the long-standing and accepted
practice of providing compensation on the basis of an injured person’s permanent
Impairment, which is arrived at after they have undergone any surgery (or other
remedial treatment) and the injury has stabilised, no matter what the injury,”
he said.“Accordingly, the Government will introduce this legislation as soon
as practicable.”
New Inspectors To Improve Outcomes For Injured Workers
27 February 2007
New State Return to Work Inspectors will be visiting Victorian employers
with WorkCover claims for compensation from this month.
The Minister for WorkCover, Tim Holding, says the visits are part of the
Victorian WorkCover Authority's commitment to help injured workers return
to work, and to provide greater support to employers in understanding their
return to work obligations.“The Victorian WorkCover Authority is committed
to doing everything it can to ensure injured workers receive the care and
support they need to re-enter the workplace,” Mr Holding said.“This includes
building awareness among employers about their legal obligations to support
injured workers, and providing advice about the best way to help rehabilitate
injured workers.”
WorkCover figures show that more than 158,000 claims for workplace injuries
have been made in the past five years at a cost of more than $5 billion in
compensation and rehabilitation.
The new Return to Work Inspectorate will focus on how the State’s employers
are performing in helping these injured workers return to the workplace.
Specifically, the Inspectors will:
Look for the presence of a nominated Return to Work Coordinator (where required)
and the nature of the role being undertaken by the Coordinator;
Ensure Return to Work plans are being developed in consultation with the
injured worker;
Ensure Return to Work plans contain the necessary information, including
an Occupational Rehabilitation Program and the Offer of Suitable Employment,
where required;
Ensure employees and employers are provided with up-to-date public
information on their rights and obligations if they suffer a workplace injury;
and make sure risk management programs are in place.
While the primary focus of the visits is around return to work issues,
the Return to Work Inspectors will retain their OHS Inspector powers.
A Return to Work Inspector will contact an employer via letter or telephone
prior to any visit with the details of the visit and what to expect.
WCV's: by calling or writing to the employers prior to the visit just
allows the employers more time, to doctor up their books, policies and do repairs
they already should have done as the new VWA add clearly depicts and shows.
What will this prove Mr Holding? The employers should already be worksafe
compliant ,that means already be providing a return to work!
Will this cover all workers from 1997 onwards or are you going to pick and
choose again, whom will be included? or maybe you will create another black
hole theory?
What about the workers who have already not been provided a return to work?
Will their claims be re-accessed by this newly formed department of the VWA?
Many of the stories I hear here at WCV's, are about workers being sacked before
they have been provided a return to work and the VWA have been ignoring this
fact for 9 years that I know of now so, why are you worried now Mr Tweedly
and Mr Holding? Do you need brownie points?
I myself have complained to you many times about this very issue, and it has
taken you 9 years that I know of to act on them, so why now? Are you going to
resolve my partners return to work issues too?
New State Return to Work Inspectors will be visiting Victorian employers
with WorkCover claims for compensation from this month.
The Minister for WorkCover, Tim Holding, says the visits are part of the
Victorian WorkCover Authority's commitment to help injured workers return
to work, and to provide greater support to employers in understanding their
return to work obligations.“The Victorian WorkCover Authority is committed
to doing everything it can to ensure injured workers receive the care and
support they need to re-enter the workplace,” Mr Holding said.“This includes
building awareness among employers about their legal obligations to support
injured workers, and providing advice about the best way to help rehabilitate
injured workers.”
WorkCover figures show that more than 158,000 claims for workplace injuries
have been made in the past five years at a cost of more than $5 billion in
compensation and rehabilitation.
The new Return to Work Inspectorate will focus on how the State’s employers
are performing in helping these injured workers return to the workplace.
Specifically, the Inspectors will:
Look for the presence of a nominated Return to Work Coordinator (where required)
and the nature of the role being undertaken by the Coordinator;
Ensure Return to Work plans are being developed in consultation with the
injured worker;
Ensure Return to Work plans contain the necessary information, including
an Occupational Rehabilitation Program and the Offer of Suitable Employment,
where required;
Ensure employees and employers are provided with up-to-date public
information on their rights and obligations if they suffer a workplace injury;
and make sure risk management programs are in place.
While the primary focus of the visits is around return to work issues,
the Return to Work Inspectors will retain their OHS Inspector powers.
A Return to Work Inspector will contact an employer via letter or telephone
prior to any visit with the details of the visit and what to expect.
WCV's: by calling or writing to the employers prior to the visit just
allows the employers more time, to doctor up their books, policies and do repairs
they already should have done as the new VWA add clearly depicts and shows.
What will this prove Mr Holding? The employers should already be worksafe
compliant ,that means already be providing a return to work!
Will this cover all workers from 1997 onwards or are you going to pick and
choose again, whom will be included? or maybe you will create another black
hole theory?
What about the workers who have already not been provided a return to work?
Will their claims be re-accessed by this newly formed department of the VWA?
Many of the stories I hear here at WCV's, are about workers being sacked before
they have been provided a return to work and the VWA have been ignoring this
fact for 9 years that I know of now so, why are you worried now Mr Tweedly
and Mr Holding? Do you need brownie points?
I myself have complained to you many times about this very issue, and it has
taken you 9 years that I know of to act on them, so why now? Are you going to
resolve my partners return to work issues too?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)