2
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 1977
BILL TO PROTECT MORE NON-MANUAL WORKERS
INTRODUCED IN LEGCO *****
THE BENEFITS OF THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ORDINANCE ARE TO BE EXTENDED TO COVER MORE NON-MANUAL WORKERS UNDER A BILL INTRODUCED IN THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL TODAY.
THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) BILL 1977, IF PASSED WOULD ALSO HAVE THE EFFECT OF EXTENDING THE TIME LIMIT FOR APPLYING FOR COMPENSATION FROM 12 MONTHS TO 24 MONTHS- OF ACHIEVING UNIFORMITY IN THE ASSESSMENT OF COMPENSATION IN CERTA IN CASES AND OF REDUCING DELAYS IN PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION.
MOVING THE ADJOURNMENT FOR THE SECOND READING OF THE BILL, THE COMMISSIONER FOR LABOUR, MR. PETER WILLIAMS, SAID THE BILL SOUGHT TO RAISE THE WAGE CEILING OF NON-MANUAL WORKERS FROM THE EXISTING $2,000 TO $5,000 A MONTH.
HE SAID: THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ORDINANCE, ORIGINALLY ENACTED IN 1953, WAS INTENDED TO ENABLE ALL MANUAL WORKERS, IRRESPECTIVE OF THEIR EARNINGS, AND NON-MANUAL WORKERS WITH LOW INCOMES TO CLAIM COMPENSATION OF EMPLOYMENT INJURIES WITHOUT HAVING TO ESTABLISH NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE EMPLOYER.
+ THE ARGUMENT WAS THAT THE HIGHER-PAID NON-MANUAL WORKERS SHOULD BE SUFFICIENTLY ENLIGHTENED OR RESOURCEFUL TO INSURE OR OTHERWISE PROTECT THEMSELVES AGAINST THE RISK OF EMPLOYMENT INJURIES.
+THIS REASON ING APPEARS LESS RELEVANT TODAY, FOR NON-MANUAL EMPLOYERS COVERED BY THE ORDINANCE CAN NOW CLAIM BOTH WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION UNDER THE ORDINANCE AND CIVIL DAMAGES UNDER COMMON LAW, PROVIDED THAT ANY AMOUNT OF CIVIL DAMAGES AWARDED IS DIMINISHED BY THE AMOUNT OF WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION PAID.
+NON-MANUAL EMPLOYEES EARNING MORE THAN $2,000 PER MONTH, HOWEVER, ARE AT A DISADVANTAGE,+ HE SAID.
+THEY CANNOT CLAIM WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION UNDER THE ORDINANCE AND ARE LIABLE TO HAVE TO PAY THE COSTS AT ANY PROCEEDINGS FOR RECOVERY OF CIVIL DAMAGES.
+FURTHERMORE, THEY HAVE TO PROVE THAT THEIR EMPLOYER HAS
A CIVIL LIABILITY TO PAY DAMAGES.
+ THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WILL PLACE THE MAJORITY OF NON-MANUAL WORKERS WITHIN THE PROTECTION OF THE ORDINANCE,+ MR. WILLIAMS SAID.
ON THE POINT OF ACHIEVING UNIFORMITY IN THE ASSESSMENT OF COMPENSATION, MR. WILLIAMS SAID THAT IN MANY CASES OF NON-SCHEDULED INJURIES (THAT IS, INJURIES NOT LISTED IN THE FIRST SCHEDULE OF THE ORDINANCE) INVOLVING FUNCTIONAL LOSS COMPENSATION COULD NOT BE CLAIMED UNLESS THEY CARRIED ACTUAL LOSS OF EARNING CAPACITY.
THE PRESENT AMENDMENT WAS INTENDED TO ALLOW A WORKER WITH A NON-SCHEDULED INJURY TO BE COMPENSATED ON THE SAME BASIS AS A SCHEDULED INJURY (THAT IS, EASED ON A FUNCTIONAL LOSS WITH IMMEDIATE OR POTENTIAL LOSS OF EARNING CAPACITY).
/HOWEVER, IN