One of the most frustrating things about workplace injuries is that injured workers’ employers’ interests (and those of the insurer of course) are very often at odds with the injured worker’s interests. A common example, your employer would like you to return to work as soon as possible. If you’re injured, it’s in your best interest to wait until you are healed and physically (or mentally) ready to handle your job demands. Or else, you could get injured again or never make a full recovery.
Sexual harassment victim Jemma Ewin won a record $500k payout – this case should serve as a wake-up call to employers that sexual harassment claims will be taken seriously by the courts, and that awards of compensation are on the rise.
The following Fair Work Commission legal decision has ruled that employers are allowed to seek further clarification where medical clearances provided by (injured) workers are general in nature, or where there are genuine concerns that there is a risk to health and safety if the (injured) worker returns to work. In other words, employers can send you to attend a medical assessment, even with a company doctor!
The Fair Work Commission has found an injured worker who was falsely accused of (workcover) fraud and dishonesty in relation to a WorkCover claim was unfairly dismissed from the company he worked at for more than 20 years. This case highlights again the “witch-hunt” culture of so many employers against injured workers.
On our “Meet the system” page, we compiled the list of the “major” role players in the workcover system, and ranked each group by its level of indifference to the welfare and the plight of the injured worker. Workcover insurance companies and their evil defense lawyers are listed as number one enemies, followed by (most) IMEs. If you read the following disturbing legal case, you will have proof of this utter indifference and lack of humanity.
In the following, recent, disturbing Workcover NSW legal matter—kindly shared by “Nemesia”—the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) upheld an injured worker’s claims about the “extraordinary conduct of WorkCover’s privacy officer”, and made factual findings that amounted to contraventions of privacy principles without specifically stating them.
The following legal cases highlights again that a return to work (RTW) plan must be made in consultation with the injured worker and his/her doctor. In other words, if no consultation was/is made a RTW refusal is valid.
As of 1 Jan 2014, the Fair Work Commission can deal with applications for an order to stop workplace bullying but only if a worker is bullied while they are (still) at work. This is obviously very problematic if a bullied worker has been sacked after lodging their bullying claim, as shown in the following recent legal case.
Melbourne Magistrate Court has recently heard the case of a WorkSafe Vic employee’s $20,000 cab charge rort “due to bullying at work”!
Further to our article “Alternative jobs for injured workers unrealistic” and the practice of “dodgy” rehabbers proposing bizarre “suitable/alternative work” to injured workers, here is another legal case have where a court has found the proposed alternative occupation for an injured worker to be unrealistic.