FRIDAY, AUGUST
THE BILL ALSO PROVIDES FOR A REVIEW BY EACH BOARD OF ITS OWN ASSESSMENT WHEN AN OBJECTION IS LODGED BY AN EMPLOYER OR AN INJURED EMPLOYEE. IF THE EMPLOYER OR EMPLOYEE STILL FEELS AGGRIEVED BY THE RESULT OF THE REVIEW, HE MAY APPEAL TO THE DISTRICT COURT.
THE ORDINARY ASSESSMENT BOARD MAY, ON REVIEW, REFER A CLAIM TO THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT BOARD.
EXPEDITING THE PROCESSING OF COMPENSATION CASES
THE BILL INTRODUCES A SIMPLER AND QUICKER PROCEDURE FOR CLAIMS IN RESPECT OF MINOR INJURY INVOLVING TEMPORARY INCAPACITY OF NOT MORE THAN 14 DAYS. FOR MORE SERIOUS CASES INVOLVING PERMANENT INCAPACITY OR TEMPORARY INCAPACITY OF OVER 14 DAYS, THE EXISTING PROCEDURE OF SETTLEMENT BY AGREEMENT WILL STILL APPLY.
IT EMPOWERS THE COMMISSIONER FOR LABOUR TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE TO THE INJURED EMPLOYEE AND THE EMPLOYER, STATING THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION AND THE PARTICULARS OF ASSESSMENT. THE AMOUNT DUE WILL HAVE TO BE PAID WITHIN 21 DAYS AFTER THE ISSUE OF THE CERTIFICATE, OTHERWISE A SURCHARGE IS PAYABLE.
ANY OBJECTION TO THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION ASSESSED SHOULD BE MADE IN WRITING TO THE COMMISSIONER WITHIN 14 DAYS AFTER THE ISSUE OF THE CERTIFICATE,
THE BILL ALSO SEEKS TO IMPROVE THE PROCEDURE FOR SETTLEMENT BY AGREEMENT BY IMPOSING MORE SPECIFIC OBLIGATIONS ON THE EMPLOYER AND BY IMPROVING BOTH THE PROCESS OF MAKING AN AGREEMENT AND ITS ENFORCEABILITY. FOR EXAMPLE, AN EMPLOYER IS REQUIRED TO TAKE ALL NECESSARY STEPS TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITHIN 21 DAYS AFTER THE RELEVANT DATE NOTIFIED BY THE COMMISSIONER, AND TO SUBMIT AN AGREEMENT TO THE COMMISSIONER FOR APPROVAL WITHIN THREE DAYS AFTER IT WAS CONCLUDED WITH THE EMPLOYEE.
WIDENING SCOPE OF APPLICATION OF EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION ORDINANCE
THE BILL PROVIDES THAT COMPENSATION IS PAYABLE TO EMPLOYEES INJURED WHILE TRAVELLING TO AND FROM THEIR WORKPLACES BY TRANSPORT PROVIDED OR ARRANGED BY THEIR EMPLOYERS.
THE BILL ALSO PROVIDES THAT WHERE, AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT, AN INSURANCE POLICY IS IN FORCE IN RESPECT OF A FAMILY MEMBER, THE ORDINANCE WILL APPLY TO HIM AS IF HE WERE AN EMPLOYEE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ORDINANCE.
IT FURTHER PROVIDES THAT AN EMPLOYER IS REQUIRED TO PAY FOR THE COSTS OF PROSTHESES OR SURGICAL APPLIANCES WHEN SUCH ITEMS ARE REQUIRED AS A RESULT OF AN ACCIDENT IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER INJURIES HAVE RESULTED IN ANY PERMANENT INCAPACITY OR TEMPORARY INCAPACITY. A TYPICAL CASE IN THIS SITUATION IS AN EMPLOYEE WHO BREAKS HIS TOOTH IN AN ACCIDENT AT WORK.
LIA