The State Government finally released the Hanks report into Victoria’s
Accident Compensation system and the timing of its release on Grand Final
eve isn’t the only embarrassment for Labor as the report contains many
regressive recommendations that will make life harder for injured workers.
The report fails to adequately recommend fair and just compensation to
workers injured in Victoria and will make it harder for workers suffering
stress related injury to claim compensation.
The report recommends that the Accident Compensation Conciliation Service
be stripped of the power to issue directions to employers to pay compensation
to injured workers. This will effectively neuter the current dispute resolution
process and is reminiscent of the deleterious changes the Kennett government
made in 1992.
Other changes diminish workers rights to return to work and / or to have
appropriate representation through the disputes process and the return to
work process.
Victoria already provides the lowest percentage of pre-injury
earnings for 120 weeks of incapacity to workers according to the
9th Edition of the WorkPlace Relations Ministers Comparative
Monitoring Report.
Victoria also has the highest rejection rate of any other
Australian compensation system with 14.1% of all new claims
being rejected according to this comparator.
Victoria has the second lowest return to work rates of any
of the other States except South Australia according to the
Heads of Workers’ Compensation Authorities Return to Work
Monitor.
Victoria has the highest percentage of injured workers that are
either sacked or retrenched with 18% of injured workers surveyed
were either sacked or retrenched this report also states.
The Victorian system already fails to provide fair and just weekly payment,
an appropriate dispute resolution process with real powers, and does not
provide adequate return to work rights for injured workers. If the
Government adopts the Hanks’ recommendations the system in Victoria
will make life even harder for injured workers under Labor.
Click here to view/print a copy of the Hanks Report Recommendations; www.compensationreview.vic.gov.au
Click here to view/print a copy of Trades Hall’s response;
http://www.cpsuvic.org/public_docs/FixWorkcoverRepsMeeting0810.pdf
September 29th, 2008.
So WCV's would like to know, going by the above figures, why is worksafe
claiming that they have Record levels of return to work sustainability in their
2008 Annual Report?.
Why is it that, Worksafe are claiming they cannot afford to include
all injured workers who missed out in the Bracks Changes, but they are
claiming a record performance from insurance operations in the high
millions?
Who is telling the truth here?
Showing posts with label The Hanks Review. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Hanks Review. Show all posts
Wednesday, 11 February 2009
Sunday, 8 February 2009
Workcover under attack
Alistair McKinnon,
Melbourne
11 October 2008
On October 8, around 500 workplace delegates and occupational health
and safety representatives attended a meeting called by the Victorian
Trades Hall Council (VTHC).
The meeting was called in response to a list of changes to the current
WorkCover legislation recommended by Peter Hanks QC, commissioned
last year to conduct an inquiry into the 1985 Workers Compensation Act.
The government of then-premier Jeff Kennett made a number of changes
to Victoria’s Accident Compensation Act, greatly reducing injured workers’
access to compensation and decreasing their entitlements. It was not until
2006 that the state Labor government declared it would “review the
Accident Compensation Act 1985 to ensure workers receive the assistance,
support and benefits they deserve”.
Now, after nine years of promises, Hanks’ final report seeks to further
diminish the entitlements of injured workers. Among the proposals made
is a change in the law to exclude workers from stress-related claims,
if the stress comes from any “reasonable management action”.
According to the VTHC this will knock out 90% of claims. Unions say
all injuries should be covered by a “no-fault” system.
Hanks also proposes occupational health and safety reps, instead of
unions, advocate for injured workers returning to work, effectively
strengthening employers’ ability to deny workers the right to return to
their jobs.
It also proposes to strip the present dispute resolution system
and have courts to hear disputes — a process that would add years to
dispute resolution and leave workers without money and medical treatment.
The meeting moved a motion opposing all recommendations not considered
by the unions to be in the best interests of workers and demanded that
the government reach agreement with the VTHC on key issues.
If these demands are not met, the VTHC has vowed to take further action.
From: Australian News, Green Left Weekly issue #770 15 October 2008.
Melbourne
11 October 2008
On October 8, around 500 workplace delegates and occupational health
and safety representatives attended a meeting called by the Victorian
Trades Hall Council (VTHC).
The meeting was called in response to a list of changes to the current
WorkCover legislation recommended by Peter Hanks QC, commissioned
last year to conduct an inquiry into the 1985 Workers Compensation Act.
The government of then-premier Jeff Kennett made a number of changes
to Victoria’s Accident Compensation Act, greatly reducing injured workers’
access to compensation and decreasing their entitlements. It was not until
2006 that the state Labor government declared it would “review the
Accident Compensation Act 1985 to ensure workers receive the assistance,
support and benefits they deserve”.
Now, after nine years of promises, Hanks’ final report seeks to further
diminish the entitlements of injured workers. Among the proposals made
is a change in the law to exclude workers from stress-related claims,
if the stress comes from any “reasonable management action”.
According to the VTHC this will knock out 90% of claims. Unions say
all injuries should be covered by a “no-fault” system.
Hanks also proposes occupational health and safety reps, instead of
unions, advocate for injured workers returning to work, effectively
strengthening employers’ ability to deny workers the right to return to
their jobs.
It also proposes to strip the present dispute resolution system
and have courts to hear disputes — a process that would add years to
dispute resolution and leave workers without money and medical treatment.
The meeting moved a motion opposing all recommendations not considered
by the unions to be in the best interests of workers and demanded that
the government reach agreement with the VTHC on key issues.
If these demands are not met, the VTHC has vowed to take further action.
From: Australian News, Green Left Weekly issue #770 15 October 2008.
Saturday, 7 February 2009
Victoria's Plan for Accident Compensation Reform & The Workplace Reforms - From the Premiers Office.
February 7th 2009
Government is currently developing a response to the Hanks Review into the
Accident Compensation Act 1985 and associated legislation.
The 2008 Statement of Government Intentions foreshadowed that the
introduction of this complex legislation into Parliament would take until
2009.
Main elements: Legislation will be introduced to implement the
Government’s response to the Hanks Report that will:
Enact changes to rewrite the Accident Compensation Act 1985 and the
Accident Compensation (WorkCover Insurance) Act 1993 through
one or more Bills; and remove anomalies and spent provisions from
existing legislation.
Responsible Minister: Finance, WorkCover and the TAC.
Source documents: Accident Compensation Act Review Report
http://www.compensationreview.vic.gov.au/
National Occupational Health & Safety Reform
Occupational Health and Safety (OH&S) is an area commonly identified
by business as having a significant regulatory burden. In acknowledging
the significant economic benefits to be derived from national harmonisation,
the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) has agreed to adopt national
consistency in OH&S laws through the implementation of model
legislation.Safe Work Australia is being established by the Commonwealth
Government and will develop an Exposure Draft of the proposed model
national OH&S law. This is expected to be released for public comment
by May 2009, following which the Workplace Relations Ministers’
Council will agree on the structure of this model law, later in 2009.
Safe Work Australia will develop model regulations and codes of practice
by early 2011. All jurisdictions have agreed to enact the law, implement
the model regulations and codes of practice, and complete all transitional
arrangements by December 2011.
The new legislation will replace the Occupational Health and Safety Act
2004.Victoria is also being consulted in the development of four regulatory
hotspots concerning safety as part of the COAG reform process:
National Mine Safety Framework
Upstream Petroleum (Oil and Gas) Regulation (which also covers resource management issues)
Rail Safety Regulation Reform
Maritime Safety Jurisdiction.
Responsible Minister: Finance, WorkCover and the TAC.
Industrial Relations Reform
The Victorian Government believes in a unitary industrial relations system
that has fairness at its core. The Commonwealth Government has introduced
its Fair Work Bill to replace WorkChoices and restore fairness to the
Commonwealth industrial framework.
Once this legislation is passed through the Senate, the Victorian Government
will work to amend its existing referral of industrial relations powers to the
Commonwealth to ensure that the improved unitary system will apply
comprehensively in Victoria.
The proposed Victorian Fair Work (Commonwealth Powers) Bill will mean
that, for the first time, Victorian businesses and workers will have access
to a fair national industrial relations system.
The Government is also determined to update and streamline existing
industrial laws in Victoria, including the operation of the Long Service
Leave Act 1992, to ensure that both employers and employees find it
easier to understand. This will assist Victorian businesses and employees
by making the Act more user-friendly and compliance more straight
forward.
Main elements:The proposed Fair Work (Commonwealth Powers)
Bill will:
Enable the provisions of the Commonwealth Fair Work Bill to apply to all
Victorian businesses within a unitary industrial relations framework; and
extend the operation of Federal workplace relations laws to employers
otherwise excluded.
Responsible Minister: Industrial Relations.
Government is currently developing a response to the Hanks Review into the
Accident Compensation Act 1985 and associated legislation.
The 2008 Statement of Government Intentions foreshadowed that the
introduction of this complex legislation into Parliament would take until
2009.
Main elements: Legislation will be introduced to implement the
Government’s response to the Hanks Report that will:
Enact changes to rewrite the Accident Compensation Act 1985 and the
Accident Compensation (WorkCover Insurance) Act 1993 through
one or more Bills; and remove anomalies and spent provisions from
existing legislation.
Responsible Minister: Finance, WorkCover and the TAC.
Source documents: Accident Compensation Act Review Report
http://www.compensationreview.vic.gov.au/
National Occupational Health & Safety Reform
Occupational Health and Safety (OH&S) is an area commonly identified
by business as having a significant regulatory burden. In acknowledging
the significant economic benefits to be derived from national harmonisation,
the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) has agreed to adopt national
consistency in OH&S laws through the implementation of model
legislation.Safe Work Australia is being established by the Commonwealth
Government and will develop an Exposure Draft of the proposed model
national OH&S law. This is expected to be released for public comment
by May 2009, following which the Workplace Relations Ministers’
Council will agree on the structure of this model law, later in 2009.
Safe Work Australia will develop model regulations and codes of practice
by early 2011. All jurisdictions have agreed to enact the law, implement
the model regulations and codes of practice, and complete all transitional
arrangements by December 2011.
The new legislation will replace the Occupational Health and Safety Act
2004.Victoria is also being consulted in the development of four regulatory
hotspots concerning safety as part of the COAG reform process:
National Mine Safety Framework
Upstream Petroleum (Oil and Gas) Regulation (which also covers resource management issues)
Rail Safety Regulation Reform
Maritime Safety Jurisdiction.
Responsible Minister: Finance, WorkCover and the TAC.
Industrial Relations Reform
The Victorian Government believes in a unitary industrial relations system
that has fairness at its core. The Commonwealth Government has introduced
its Fair Work Bill to replace WorkChoices and restore fairness to the
Commonwealth industrial framework.
Once this legislation is passed through the Senate, the Victorian Government
will work to amend its existing referral of industrial relations powers to the
Commonwealth to ensure that the improved unitary system will apply
comprehensively in Victoria.
The proposed Victorian Fair Work (Commonwealth Powers) Bill will mean
that, for the first time, Victorian businesses and workers will have access
to a fair national industrial relations system.
The Government is also determined to update and streamline existing
industrial laws in Victoria, including the operation of the Long Service
Leave Act 1992, to ensure that both employers and employees find it
easier to understand. This will assist Victorian businesses and employees
by making the Act more user-friendly and compliance more straight
forward.
Main elements:The proposed Fair Work (Commonwealth Powers)
Bill will:
Enable the provisions of the Commonwealth Fair Work Bill to apply to all
Victorian businesses within a unitary industrial relations framework; and
extend the operation of Federal workplace relations laws to employers
otherwise excluded.
Responsible Minister: Industrial Relations.
Wednesday, 4 February 2009
Tuesday, 27 January 2009
VTHC - Review of the Victorian Accident Compensation Act 1985 – June 2008
Ref: VTHC, Friday 13 June 2008
In December 2007 the Minister for WorkSafe, Tim Holding, announced an
inquiry into the Accident Compensation Act. The State Government
appointed Mr Peter Hanks QC to conduct the review. The report goes to
the government in July.
A little historyIn 1985 the Accident Compensation Act (WorkCare) was
introduced by the Cain Labor Government. This had a focus on providing
rehabilitation services as soon as possible after injury to return injured
workers to gainful employment and also to enable the worker to return to
normal community life. WorkCare gave weekly payments (80% of pre injury
average), quickly and ongoing until return to work or retirement age.
The premiums for employers in the meat industry were
reduced dramatically with the introduction of WorkCare.
In 1992 when the Kennett Government got in WorkCare was changed to
WorkCover and there were numerous changes.The first widespread
changes were to throw more than six thousand long term injured workers
off compensation; limited workers’ rights to claim compensation; reduced
access to rehabilitation and abolished union representation in policy making.
Approximately every 6 months for the next 7 years there were
changes to the Accident Compensation Act. Most of these
changes reduced worker’s entitlements to compensation.
By October 1999 (when Labor got back in) entitlements for workers had
dropped dramatically.
Specific reductions included:
• a requirement to prove that employment was a significant contributing factor;
• the exclusion of a significant proportion of stress claims;
• the exclusion of compensation claims if workers had not told potential
employers that they had (in the dim and distant past) suffered illness or injury;
• removed compensation rights unless an injury report has been made within
30 days;
• the removal of the specialist appeals structures - replaced with
conciliation and the magistrate/county court;
• the exclusion of injuries that
occurred on the way to or from work;
• reduced weekly payments to:o 95%
of PIAWE (excluding penalties and overtime) for 13 weeks;o then after 13
weeks and up to 104 weeks:? payments dropped to 75% for people who
had no capacity to do anything at all;? payments dropped to 60% for people
who had a capacity to do anything other than pre-injury work (whether a job
was provided or not);after 104 weeks:? workers who could still do absolutely
nothing, forever, continued to receive 75%; and ? workers who could
theoretically do something, either now or in the future,
get NO WEEKLY PAYMENTS;
• medical expenses were terminated 12 months after weekly
payments were stopped.
• common law (the right to sue negligent employers)
was abolished since 1997;
• compensation for permanent injury had been taken away from or
reduced because they had established new ways of measuring impairment
- American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment
- with a 10% whole person impairment as a threshold for physical injuries.
These guides state that they should not be used for this purpose.
Psychological Impairment had to meet a threshold of 30% before any payment.
Psychological injuries that come from being permanently physically injured
don’t count at all. The impact of these changes meant that many workers
with permanent injuries did not get any lump sums for compensation;
• rehabilitation was reduced so that it was only available for return to work,
workers had no choice of who was the rehabilitation provider and no there
was no rehabilitation to improve quality of life or participation in the community.
After Labor got back into government, There have been minimal
improvements for workers since Labor returned to government.
• After October 1999, Common Law was reintroduced for some workers
(fewer than before November 1997).
People who were seriously injured through negligence between November
11, 1997 and October 20, 1999 were left in the black hole.
• Calculation of pre injury average weekly payments was changed so that
regular overtime and shift penalties were counted in for calculating weekly
payments in the first 26 weeks.
That improvement cuts out after 26 weeks so the workers who have serious
injuries and can’t work at anything are still as badly off as they were under
Kennett. For example a supermarket butcher who worked
Thursday to Monday earning $1000 a week before injury, who is too badly
injured to do any work receives $555 from WorkCover after 26 weeks.
• In 2004 the threshold for a lump sum payment for permanent impairment
from musculoskeletal injuries (backs and limbs) was reduced from 10% to 5%
and the minimum payment went from $5000 to $9190.
• By 2006 the weekly payments for workers who have a capacity to do
something went from 60% to 75%.
• In 2006 the cut off for weekly payments for most workers was
changed from 104 weeks to 130 weeks. Gifts for employers - Premium
ReductionsAfter Labor got back into government the employers have
been rewarded handsomely and repeatedly.? 2004 - premium reduction
of10% that is $180 million a year. ? 2005 - a further 10% premium
reduction of $170 million per annum.? 2006 - another 10% reduction
in the average premium rate that is $170.00 million per year.? 2007 -
this time 10% premium reductions gave employers around $167 million
per year.? 2008 - a further saving of 5% for employers of $88 million
was announced during the review process i.e. pre-empting any
recommendations from the review.In 4 years employers have been
given a 45% average premium cut! Across the board employers
have been saved $1,984 million.
It is time for improvements to WorkCover for workers. Workers are
the people who suffer from injuries and illnesses that we get in the course of,
or arising from, work. We want a system that provides adequate and just
compensation to injured workers.
What do we want?
Compensation must be paid for workers with injuries or illnesses
arising out of, or in the course of employment. It should not be harder to
get compensation for some injuries and illnesses such as psychological
conditions, heart attacks and strokes. We argued to repeal sections 82(2A),
82(2B), and 82(2C) of the Act in order to have “adequate and just compensation”.
Some changes that we asked for to simplify the system and make it fairer
for injured workers, are:
• a WorkCover Certificate of Capacity, requiring
time off work; limited hours of work or medical treatment should serve as
the lodging of a claim;
• failing to put injuries in a register within 30 days
should not be grounds to reject a claim;
• claims for injuries that are made
worse by work should not be rejected because the worker did not disclose
some previous injury or illness to a company when they applied for a job;
• it should be illegal to threaten, discriminate against or sack anybody for
claiming workers’ compensation, assisting another worker to claim or
reporting risks.
Improved weekly payments
The union movement has recommended that payments should start
within 7 days of a claim being made (not waiting for 45 days which is what
happens now with most claims).
This was called ‘provisional payment’. It is not a new idea. Payments start
that soon in NSW.
The union movement strongly recommended that weekly payments should
be based on “normal weekly earnings” (NWE) that includes piece rates,
penalty rates, overtime, allowances, commissions, bonuses, salary
packaging and the like. We also argued that superannuation should
continue to be paid.
The union movement strongly supported the VTHC recommendation that
weekly payments be 100% of the NWE for the first 52 weeks and
then 80% of NWE.
The VTHC recommendation is that the period of entitlement to weekly
benefits for workers with a capacity for employment suited to the worker
(meaning employment for which the worker is currently suited and work
that is available) should be increased to 260 weeks.
Rehabilitation - Return to Work
The VTHC proposal is that the AC Act be amended to require the employers
to consult and reach agreement with the injured workers and their treating
practitioners on offers of employment suited to the worker.
Unions recommended that the AC Act should be amended to recognise the
health and safety representatives elected under the Occupational Health
and Safety Act 2004 and recognise their powers.
They also recommended that the AC Act should state that the injured
workers have the right to be represented by HSRs, Job Delegates or
Union Officials.
The VTHC recommendation is that the employers’ obligation to provide
pre-injury employment (when the worker is fit to perform them) or suitable
employment (if the worker has a capacity to work but is not fit for pre-injury
employment) should be extended to be the period of the weekly payments.
It also supported the development of a Compensation/Return to Work
Inspectorate who had similar powers and responsibilities to inspectors
appointed under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.
Dispute Resolution Unions argued that Conciliation Officers have limited
powers to resolve disputes when the agent/employer maintain their position
and will not consider any alternative. The employers’ freedom of choice of
claims agent (from the VWA list) can result in the claims agents
being unwilling to contradict employers, for fear of losing the account.
These claims go to Conciliation where they are not resolved and usually
go on to be settled on the steps of the Court because the powers of the
Conciliation Officers are so limited. The worker does not get paid for
months or years, does not get essential treatment and work relationships
break down.
The VTHC also recommended that:
• The powers of the Conciliation Officers at the Accident Compensation
Conciliation Service (ACCS) be amended to provide for a full Administrative
Review of any dispute relating to a claim for compensation, with the right to
appeal to the Court. The AC Act should provide that Conciliation Officers can
affirm,amend, or replace a decision of an agent/employer/self insurer that has
created the dispute.
• The AC Act be amended to unequivocally provide that a worker be
represented throughout the dispute the process
.• The Conciliation Officers be given the powers to issue directions with
respect to return to work obligations.
Permanent Impairment
Unions do not accept that the AMA Impairment Guides are the
appropriate\way of evaluating the impact of permanent injuries.
We also argued that stress, anxiety and depression that come from
having pain, not being able to do the work that you want to or live a normal
life should be compensable.
We argued that further work needs to be carried out on developing an
appropriate method of measuring the pain and suffering from disability
and impairment.Until appropriate measures have been developed and
agreed on the unions support the threshold of 5% for all injuries including
psychiatric. These are not all of our arguments and recommendations, but
it gives some idea of what the unions have said about the Accident
Compensation Act.
NB: The VTHC website acknowledges the AMIEU for the research and
preparation of the above information.
In December 2007 the Minister for WorkSafe, Tim Holding, announced an
inquiry into the Accident Compensation Act. The State Government
appointed Mr Peter Hanks QC to conduct the review. The report goes to
the government in July.
A little historyIn 1985 the Accident Compensation Act (WorkCare) was
introduced by the Cain Labor Government. This had a focus on providing
rehabilitation services as soon as possible after injury to return injured
workers to gainful employment and also to enable the worker to return to
normal community life. WorkCare gave weekly payments (80% of pre injury
average), quickly and ongoing until return to work or retirement age.
The premiums for employers in the meat industry were
reduced dramatically with the introduction of WorkCare.
In 1992 when the Kennett Government got in WorkCare was changed to
WorkCover and there were numerous changes.The first widespread
changes were to throw more than six thousand long term injured workers
off compensation; limited workers’ rights to claim compensation; reduced
access to rehabilitation and abolished union representation in policy making.
Approximately every 6 months for the next 7 years there were
changes to the Accident Compensation Act. Most of these
changes reduced worker’s entitlements to compensation.
By October 1999 (when Labor got back in) entitlements for workers had
dropped dramatically.
Specific reductions included:
• a requirement to prove that employment was a significant contributing factor;
• the exclusion of a significant proportion of stress claims;
• the exclusion of compensation claims if workers had not told potential
employers that they had (in the dim and distant past) suffered illness or injury;
• removed compensation rights unless an injury report has been made within
30 days;
• the removal of the specialist appeals structures - replaced with
conciliation and the magistrate/county court;
• the exclusion of injuries that
occurred on the way to or from work;
• reduced weekly payments to:o 95%
of PIAWE (excluding penalties and overtime) for 13 weeks;o then after 13
weeks and up to 104 weeks:? payments dropped to 75% for people who
had no capacity to do anything at all;? payments dropped to 60% for people
who had a capacity to do anything other than pre-injury work (whether a job
was provided or not);after 104 weeks:? workers who could still do absolutely
nothing, forever, continued to receive 75%; and ? workers who could
theoretically do something, either now or in the future,
get NO WEEKLY PAYMENTS;
• medical expenses were terminated 12 months after weekly
payments were stopped.
• common law (the right to sue negligent employers)
was abolished since 1997;
• compensation for permanent injury had been taken away from or
reduced because they had established new ways of measuring impairment
- American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment
- with a 10% whole person impairment as a threshold for physical injuries.
These guides state that they should not be used for this purpose.
Psychological Impairment had to meet a threshold of 30% before any payment.
Psychological injuries that come from being permanently physically injured
don’t count at all. The impact of these changes meant that many workers
with permanent injuries did not get any lump sums for compensation;
• rehabilitation was reduced so that it was only available for return to work,
workers had no choice of who was the rehabilitation provider and no there
was no rehabilitation to improve quality of life or participation in the community.
After Labor got back into government, There have been minimal
improvements for workers since Labor returned to government.
• After October 1999, Common Law was reintroduced for some workers
(fewer than before November 1997).
People who were seriously injured through negligence between November
11, 1997 and October 20, 1999 were left in the black hole.
• Calculation of pre injury average weekly payments was changed so that
regular overtime and shift penalties were counted in for calculating weekly
payments in the first 26 weeks.
That improvement cuts out after 26 weeks so the workers who have serious
injuries and can’t work at anything are still as badly off as they were under
Kennett. For example a supermarket butcher who worked
Thursday to Monday earning $1000 a week before injury, who is too badly
injured to do any work receives $555 from WorkCover after 26 weeks.
• In 2004 the threshold for a lump sum payment for permanent impairment
from musculoskeletal injuries (backs and limbs) was reduced from 10% to 5%
and the minimum payment went from $5000 to $9190.
• By 2006 the weekly payments for workers who have a capacity to do
something went from 60% to 75%.
• In 2006 the cut off for weekly payments for most workers was
changed from 104 weeks to 130 weeks. Gifts for employers - Premium
ReductionsAfter Labor got back into government the employers have
been rewarded handsomely and repeatedly.? 2004 - premium reduction
of10% that is $180 million a year. ? 2005 - a further 10% premium
reduction of $170 million per annum.? 2006 - another 10% reduction
in the average premium rate that is $170.00 million per year.? 2007 -
this time 10% premium reductions gave employers around $167 million
per year.? 2008 - a further saving of 5% for employers of $88 million
was announced during the review process i.e. pre-empting any
recommendations from the review.In 4 years employers have been
given a 45% average premium cut! Across the board employers
have been saved $1,984 million.
It is time for improvements to WorkCover for workers. Workers are
the people who suffer from injuries and illnesses that we get in the course of,
or arising from, work. We want a system that provides adequate and just
compensation to injured workers.
What do we want?
Compensation must be paid for workers with injuries or illnesses
arising out of, or in the course of employment. It should not be harder to
get compensation for some injuries and illnesses such as psychological
conditions, heart attacks and strokes. We argued to repeal sections 82(2A),
82(2B), and 82(2C) of the Act in order to have “adequate and just compensation”.
Some changes that we asked for to simplify the system and make it fairer
for injured workers, are:
• a WorkCover Certificate of Capacity, requiring
time off work; limited hours of work or medical treatment should serve as
the lodging of a claim;
• failing to put injuries in a register within 30 days
should not be grounds to reject a claim;
• claims for injuries that are made
worse by work should not be rejected because the worker did not disclose
some previous injury or illness to a company when they applied for a job;
• it should be illegal to threaten, discriminate against or sack anybody for
claiming workers’ compensation, assisting another worker to claim or
reporting risks.
Improved weekly payments
The union movement has recommended that payments should start
within 7 days of a claim being made (not waiting for 45 days which is what
happens now with most claims).
This was called ‘provisional payment’. It is not a new idea. Payments start
that soon in NSW.
The union movement strongly recommended that weekly payments should
be based on “normal weekly earnings” (NWE) that includes piece rates,
penalty rates, overtime, allowances, commissions, bonuses, salary
packaging and the like. We also argued that superannuation should
continue to be paid.
The union movement strongly supported the VTHC recommendation that
weekly payments be 100% of the NWE for the first 52 weeks and
then 80% of NWE.
The VTHC recommendation is that the period of entitlement to weekly
benefits for workers with a capacity for employment suited to the worker
(meaning employment for which the worker is currently suited and work
that is available) should be increased to 260 weeks.
Rehabilitation - Return to Work
The VTHC proposal is that the AC Act be amended to require the employers
to consult and reach agreement with the injured workers and their treating
practitioners on offers of employment suited to the worker.
Unions recommended that the AC Act should be amended to recognise the
health and safety representatives elected under the Occupational Health
and Safety Act 2004 and recognise their powers.
They also recommended that the AC Act should state that the injured
workers have the right to be represented by HSRs, Job Delegates or
Union Officials.
The VTHC recommendation is that the employers’ obligation to provide
pre-injury employment (when the worker is fit to perform them) or suitable
employment (if the worker has a capacity to work but is not fit for pre-injury
employment) should be extended to be the period of the weekly payments.
It also supported the development of a Compensation/Return to Work
Inspectorate who had similar powers and responsibilities to inspectors
appointed under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.
Dispute Resolution Unions argued that Conciliation Officers have limited
powers to resolve disputes when the agent/employer maintain their position
and will not consider any alternative. The employers’ freedom of choice of
claims agent (from the VWA list) can result in the claims agents
being unwilling to contradict employers, for fear of losing the account.
These claims go to Conciliation where they are not resolved and usually
go on to be settled on the steps of the Court because the powers of the
Conciliation Officers are so limited. The worker does not get paid for
months or years, does not get essential treatment and work relationships
break down.
The VTHC also recommended that:
• The powers of the Conciliation Officers at the Accident Compensation
Conciliation Service (ACCS) be amended to provide for a full Administrative
Review of any dispute relating to a claim for compensation, with the right to
appeal to the Court. The AC Act should provide that Conciliation Officers can
affirm,amend, or replace a decision of an agent/employer/self insurer that has
created the dispute.
• The AC Act be amended to unequivocally provide that a worker be
represented throughout the dispute the process
.• The Conciliation Officers be given the powers to issue directions with
respect to return to work obligations.
Permanent Impairment
Unions do not accept that the AMA Impairment Guides are the
appropriate\way of evaluating the impact of permanent injuries.
We also argued that stress, anxiety and depression that come from
having pain, not being able to do the work that you want to or live a normal
life should be compensable.
We argued that further work needs to be carried out on developing an
appropriate method of measuring the pain and suffering from disability
and impairment.Until appropriate measures have been developed and
agreed on the unions support the threshold of 5% for all injuries including
psychiatric. These are not all of our arguments and recommendations, but
it gives some idea of what the unions have said about the Accident
Compensation Act.
NB: The VTHC website acknowledges the AMIEU for the research and
preparation of the above information.
Sunday, 30 November 2008
ACA Review - A Joint Submission.
This submission has been created by the following law firms:
Australian Lawyers Alliance
Holding Redlich
Ryan Carlise Thomas
Slater & Gordon
Maurice Balckburn
Australian Lawyers Alliance
Holding Redlich
Ryan Carlise Thomas
Slater & Gordon
Maurice Balckburn
The Workers Compensation Review threatens stress claims.
The ASU and other unions in Victoria are campaigning against proposed
changes to WorkCover that will restrict stress claims.
The changes have the potential to impact on workers, including ASU members,
by making it harder to receive compensation from stress claims.
Following a review of the Accident Compensation Act, it has been
recommended that the Act be amended to exclude all stress injury claims that
arise from any “reasonable management action”.
The proposed change is in direct contradiction to the underlying principle of the
Victorian WorkCover system that it is a “no fault” system, whether on the part
of the employer or the worker.
If this change happens, it would create a two-tiered system, with a worker who
has suffered a psychological injury required to demonstrate that the actions of
his or her employer were unreasonable, whereas if the injury were physical the
worker would simply have to show that the injury happened at work to obtain
statutory benefits.
The ASU and other unions find this recommendation an affront to worker’s
rights and a weakening of the laws designed to protect workers.
Each year about 3000 people receive stress injuries at work. If the
recommended changes go ahead, it is predicted that the vast majority of stress
claims will not be accepted in the future.
The ASU is lobbying the Brumby Government to stop the proposed changes.
Victorian workers deserver better and injured workers deserve the best system.
Stress Facts:
An ASU survey of 1,000 members last year found stress in the workplace was
an issue for almost 90% of the respondents.
The survey found one in five members described their workplaces as “very
stressful.” And one third of the respondents had taken sick leave as a result of
workplace stress.
The ASU is presently undertaking a stress project, funded by WorkSafe, to
prevent stress at work.
Ref: www.asuvic.org
changes to WorkCover that will restrict stress claims.
The changes have the potential to impact on workers, including ASU members,
by making it harder to receive compensation from stress claims.
Following a review of the Accident Compensation Act, it has been
recommended that the Act be amended to exclude all stress injury claims that
arise from any “reasonable management action”.
The proposed change is in direct contradiction to the underlying principle of the
Victorian WorkCover system that it is a “no fault” system, whether on the part
of the employer or the worker.
If this change happens, it would create a two-tiered system, with a worker who
has suffered a psychological injury required to demonstrate that the actions of
his or her employer were unreasonable, whereas if the injury were physical the
worker would simply have to show that the injury happened at work to obtain
statutory benefits.
The ASU and other unions find this recommendation an affront to worker’s
rights and a weakening of the laws designed to protect workers.
Each year about 3000 people receive stress injuries at work. If the
recommended changes go ahead, it is predicted that the vast majority of stress
claims will not be accepted in the future.
The ASU is lobbying the Brumby Government to stop the proposed changes.
Victorian workers deserver better and injured workers deserve the best system.
Stress Facts:
An ASU survey of 1,000 members last year found stress in the workplace was
an issue for almost 90% of the respondents.
The survey found one in five members described their workplaces as “very
stressful.” And one third of the respondents had taken sick leave as a result of
workplace stress.
The ASU is presently undertaking a stress project, funded by WorkSafe, to
prevent stress at work.
Ref: www.asuvic.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)