Human Capital forum is the place for positive industry interaction and welcomes your professional and informed opinion.

Employers fume as injured worker wins dismissal claim

Notify me of new replies via email
HC Online | 06 Jun 2012, 12:00 AM Agree 0
The FWA full bench decision in an appeals case brought forward by a major labour hire company has been met with outrage from employers.
  • Madeleine | 06 Jun 2012, 05:28 PM Agree 0
    We all learn from such decisions. No worker wants to be injured on the job. Fair enough they are entitled to compensation, and to be given the opportunity to return to work. Some employees undergo dreadful pain and such psychological trauma in the recovery process, and in returning to work should not be penalised. Wonder if the shoe was on the other foot how management would feel if their job was on the line after injury and to face the bleak prospect of dismissal.
  • Sonia | 06 Jun 2012, 06:08 PM Agree 0
    Ofcourse in genuine cases of injury caused at work this situation needs to be fair and clear and this case has at least clarifed the situation for all concerned. However, there are individuals who fain a work related injury which is hard to prove otherwise even by specialists, medical practioners etc. I have known of cases where an individual was already suffering a back complaint which was never brought up until a full investigation was undertaken due to the individual claiming to have sustained the injury at work. It was a painstaking and expensive excercise for the employer, the insurer and the medical practioners involved, eventually it was proven that the individual did sustain the injury previously and should have notified the employer so the duties they performed were lighter and less likely to exacerbate the previous injury. The employee was reinstated on light duties only to then sexually harrass another employee. Some people really are not genuine, nor fair nor quite right in the head and now employers are so tied up in FWA and red tape that they do seem often to be dammed if they do and dammed if they dont.
  • Marina Gilmore | 07 Jun 2012, 09:43 AM Agree 0
    I like/agree with Madeleine's comment, while it can difficult for employers to keep up with an injured employee it is still the employer's responsibility to do so whether they are at work or not.
  • Antoni Gavron | 13 Jun 2012, 09:54 AM Agree 0
    But for the injury the employee would have been at work so its logical to extend thus contest that the employment period was continuous. However the w. Comp Act prohibits termination for fixed periods whilst injured thus having the injury and being protected from termination by the Comp Act may artificially extended the employment period to the required 12 months.
  • MM | 26 Jul 2013, 11:19 AM Agree 0
    This is not new - Under the Workchoices legislation there was a case of unfair dismissal when an employee was on w/comp. The commissioner in that case (Hills v ??) said that being on w/comp should be treated exactly as if the employee was on paid sick leave. Their absence "caused by the employer" should not lead to less favourable treatment than other employees absent due to illness or injury not "caused" by the employer.
Post a reply