WEL .
JULY 10, 1985
15
BILL OFFERS CLARIFICATION OF PRINCIPLES ******
PROPOSALS IN THE EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION (AMENDMENT)(NO. 2) BILL 1985 ARE INTENDED TO CLARIFY THE PRINCIPLES TO BE FOLLOWED BY THE COMPENSATION ASSESSMENT BOARDS AND SHOULD NOT LEAD TO ANY MAJOR CHANGE IN THEIR CURRENT PRACTICE.
THIS WAS STATED BY THE COMMISSIONER FOR LABOUR. THE HON DARWIN CHEN, IN MOVING THE SECOND READING OF THE BILL IN THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL TODAY (WEDNESDAY).
MR CHEN ALSO SAID THAT THE AMENDMENTS SHOULD NOT HAVE ANY ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE RATES OF PREMIA FOR EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION INSURANCE.
HE EXPLAINED THAT EXPERIENCE HAD SHOWN THAT THERE WERE A NUMBER OF POINTS WHERE THE EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION ORDINANCE NEEDED FURTHER CLARIFICATION.
HE SAID SECTION 9 OF THE ORDINANCE PROVIDED THAT CERTAIN SPECIFIC INJURIES WERE CONSIDERED TO RESULT IN A SPECIFIC DEGREE OF LOSS OF EARNING CAPACITY AS LISTED IN THE FIRST SCHEDULE TO THE ORDINANCE.
IF AN INJURY WAS NOT LISTED IN THE SCHEDULE, THE DEGREE OF LOSS OF EARNING CAPACITY HAD TO BE DECIDED BY AN APPOINTED ASSESSMENT BOARD.
+D IFFICULTIES HAVE BEEN EXPERIENCED BY THE BOARDS IN THE ASSESSMENT OF CERTAIN NON-SCHEDULED INJURIES AND THE BILL SEEKS TO SPELL OUT MORE CLEARLY THE PRINCIPLES GUIDING THE BOARDS IN SUCH CASES, MR CHEN SAID.
HE SAID THAT FOR SCHEDULED INJURIES, COMPENSATION WAS BASED ON THE PERCENTAGE OF LOSS OF EARNING CAPACITY SPECIFIED IN THE FIRST SCHEDULE, WHETHER OR NOT THE INJURED PERSON HAD MANAGED TO FIND A JOB AT A SALARY EQUIVALENT TO WHAT HE WAS EARNING BEFORE THE INJURY.
HOWEVER, IT APPEARED FROM A RECENT APPEAL COURT CASE THAT UNDER THE EXISTING ORDINANCE, IF AN INJURY WAS NOT LISTED IN THE FIRST SCHEDULE, THE INJURED PERSON MIGHT LOSE HIS ENTITLEMENT TO COMPENSATION IF HE OBTAINED EMPLOYMENT AT A SALARY EQUIVALENT TO WHAT HE WAS EARNING BEFORE HE WAS INJURED.
+THIS IS FELT TO BE UNFAIR, SINCE THERE IS STILL THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE INJURED PERSON'S ABILITY TO KEEP HIS JOB HAS BEEN REDUCED. THUS IN THE LONG RUN HIS EARNING CAPACITY IS LIKELY TO BE REDUCED,+
TO DEAL WITH THIS ANOMALY, MR CHEN SAID, THE BILL PROVIDED THAT THE BOARD MIGHT, BUT WAS NOT OBLIGED TO, GIVE WEIGHT TO ANY ACTUAL EARNINGS AFTER THE INJURY.
IT ALSO SOUGHT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT COMPENSATION COULD COVER LOSS OF EARNING CAPACITY, PRESENT OR FUTURE.
/HE ALSO