Many different situations can occur in the workplace, each of which requires regulation by managers and supervisors. In particular, this applies to cases when the welfare and health of employees of organizations are at risk. In this case, especially established regulations are applied, which provide an opportunity to correctly assess the benefits that will be paid to the victim. An example of this regulatory initiative is The Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT). It helps to determine the need for payment for damages based on each individual case. As part of this work, an example of the case of WSIAT Decision 935 19, 05/09/2019, E. Kosmidis, will be carried out.
Thus, injuries at work are quite common for any company. This can happen for multiple reasons, which in the future will affect not only the activities of the organization but also what payments will be assigned to it. This financial support is paid for in several cases. One of them is the loss of the employee’s ability to work and the inability to continue functions according to the company’s requirements.
In Canada, to resolve such situations, there is a specialized body called The Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal. The basis of its activity is that it is the “final level of appeal to which workers and employers may bring disputes concerning workplace safety and insurance matters” (“Home,” n.d., para. 1). Thus, the main task of the tribunal becomes to provide justice and fairness in the treatment of employees who have disputes with organizations, in which they work.
The case under consideration, called WSIAT Decision 935 19, 05/09/2019, E. Kosmidis, examines the case under the prerogative of WSIAT. An adult employee was injured while performing his functions. Specifically, “he suffered a knee injury in January 2006, while working with a temporary placement agency as a dockworker” ((“Highlights of noteworthy decisions,” n.d., para. 1). The basis for submitting the application was the earnings basis for calculation of benefits, which should be provided to him in accordance with the law. The special nature of the investigation was due to the fact that the employee was in the category of students at the time of injury at the workplace.
To determine the benefits that should be paid to an employee, it is necessary to determine the average salary. To define this aspect, sections 53(4) and 16 of O. Reg. 175/98 of The Workplace Safety and Insurance Act are used, the latter of which specifically concerns employees who are trained in an educational institution. It is stated that “the recalculation under s. 16(9) is determined with reference to the average earnings of a worker where the injured worker would likely be employed if the injury had not occurred” ((“Highlights of noteworthy decisions,” n.d., para. 2). In these cases, certain criteria are applied to the recalculation of payments. Among these characteristics are the average salary based on the age, level of education, and skills of the employee at the time of injury in the workplace.
As part of the case under consideration, an appeal was submitted regarding the payment to the victim. Hence, “the Board based LOE benefits on average earnings of a payroll clerk and the worker submitted that benefits should be based on average earnings of an accountant” ((“Highlights of noteworthy decisions,” n.d., para. 3). In such cases, the appeal can be considered in two ways. According to the first, it is necessary to take into account the goals and objectives set by the student-workers regarding the profession and the salary of a young specialist within the chosen industry. The second method implies the absence of a specific educational goal, and then the payments are considered to be their average salary for the industry.
The peculiarity is that they are adjusted depending on the student’s skills at the time of the incident. A specialized examination was conducted to determine the payment within the framework of the case under study. It showed that the student had not yet graduated from high school, did not have academically high scores and achievements, and did not have a penchant for accounting. Moreover, it is emphasized that “the Vice-Chair did not find that the worker had a clear career plan” (“Highlights of noteworthy decisions,” n.d., para. 7). These characteristics contributed to the decision to refuse to accept the employee’s appeal.
In conclusion, the study of the processes and procedures that are included in the process of determining the output of workers in case of an occupational injury is of particular value. This is due to the fact that it provides an understanding of how these events take place and what aspects are considered in The Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal. The case WSIAT Decision 935 19, 05/09/2019, E. Kosmidis under study had unique characteristics, as it considered an incident with an adult employee who had not graduated from an educational institution and did not have the necessary level of education and motivation to perform accounting activities. A special WSIAT investigation was conducted to make a decision. It was these features that became the justification for the cancellation of his appeal against the employer.
References
Highlights of noteworthy decisions. (n.d.). The Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal. Web.
Home. (n.d.). The Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal. Web.