The " Liability " issue !

The extension of insurance cover to the journey employees make from home to work - and from work to home at the end of each day was considered by many employers  to be an unjust impost - and in recent times there has been pressure for it's abolition.

A case that has just reached resolution in New South Wales will reinforce that attitude.  A seventy year old male on the availability list for casual teaching replacement jobs was offered work by the Education Departments Casual Direct agency.  The phone call came after 7-30 am and he was directed to a school which required an 8-30 am start.

This teacher claimed he was walking at about " three times his normal pace " to achieve this deadline when he stumbled on the uneven footpath.  The fall resulted in injuries to his head, shoulder and knees - and he later developed back pain.  He filed a compensation claim, and this was rejected, but court action resulted in him being awarded a weekly payment of $ 1391.44 from October 2012.    The cumulative payout will probably exceed $ 100,000.

Pointing the finger of responsibility for this injury opens an interesting can of worms.  The teacher says he was going to a " very strict school ", but surely his decision to walk at an unsafe pace was his alone. If he had been directed to a distant school and been driving, would reimbursement for a speeding ticket have been a legitimate claim under similar circumstances ?

The interpretation of what this form of insurance covers seems to be ever widening.  It seems that the courts are adopting a very benevolent attitude to claims and dismissing the obligation for claimants to adopt reasonable measures to protect their own safety.   It would be drawing a long bow to insist that the Casual Direct agency required accurate punctuality when calling in a casual at very short notice.  Filling a temporary vacancy is far different from the time factor required of permanent staff reporting for work.  To lay the blame at the door of the agency totally ignores all the extraneous factors involved in a short notice call up.

Employer organizations are groaning under the ever increasing premiums this insurance cover requires and as those premiums are directly related to the number of employees covered, it is a positive disincentive to hire more staff.   The problem is that so many benefits that sound quite reasonable at the time of conception, immediately take on a life of their own and morph into monsters when the legal fraternity extend the range of options by way of test cases.   Once a protocol is established in legal interpretation, the door is wide open.

It seems that we have reached an impasse where a lot of employers who would welcome an extended work force and a business expansion are backing away from hiring more people.  At the same time, a veritable army of unemployed are desperate for a job - and have little in the way of future prospects.

A little sanity in reforming the obstacles that stand in the way of employment and a transfer of responsibility back to the individual when it comes to personal safety - would go a long way to solving both problems !