Cameron v Specialised Geo Services Pty Ltd
[2022] NSWPIC 614
•4 November 2022
| CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER | |
Citation: | Cameron v Specialised Geo Services Pty Ltd [2022] NSWPIC 614 |
| APPLICANT: | Owen Cameron |
| RESPONDENT: | Specialised Geo Services Pty Ltd |
| Member: | Rachel Homan |
| DATE OF DECISION: | 4 November 2022 |
CATCHWORDS: | WORKERS COMPENSATION - Claim for weekly benefits and compensation pursuant to section 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 for right shoulder surgery; liability for surgery conceded; quantification of the applicant’s entitlement to weekly compensation; where applicant had returned to work in full-time employment; where vocational assessment reports obtained by the insurer assessed the applicant as being suitable for higher paid roles; “current weekly earnings”; Held – the applicant’s “current weekly earnings” were his actual gross earnings; despite a strong academic ability and having relevant qualifications the applicant had not worked in his field of study during the 3 ½ years since graduating; the applicant had applied for higher paying roles but was unsuccessful; roles identified in the vocational assessment typically required experience and/or qualifications the applicant did not possess; award for weekly compensation at varying rates. |
| determinations made: | 1. The respondent to pay the applicant weekly compensation pursuant to s 37 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 as follows: (a) from 18 August 2021 to 30 September 2021 at the rate of $701.92 per week; (b) from 1 October 2021 to 30 November 2021 at the rate of $728.58 per week; (c) from 1 December 2021 to 31 March 2022 at the rate of $744.82 per week; (d) from 1 April 2022 to 30 September 2022 at the rate of $779.92 per week, and (e) from 1 October 2022 to date and continuing at the rate of $803.62 per week. 2. The weekly rates identified above are to be reduced as follows: (a) by $90 for the week commencing 26 January 2022, and (b) by $330 for the week commencing 15 June 2022. 3. The respondent to have credit for payments already made during the periods above. 4. The parties have liberty to apply with respect to the Commission’s calculations within seven working days of receiving notification of this determination. 5. The claim for compensation pursuant to s 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 is discontinued. NOTATION: 1. The respondent agrees on a voluntary basis to pay the costs of and incidental to the right arthroscopic subacromial decompression with coracoacromial ligament release and bursectomy proposed by Dr Wade Harper, in accordance with s 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. |
STATEMENT OF REASONS
BACKGROUND
Mr Owen Cameron (the applicant), who is currently 29 years old, was employed by Specialised Geo Services Pty Ltd (the respondent) as a rope access geotechnician.
On 21 April 2020, the applicant sustained an injury to his right shoulder. Liability to pay compensation in respect of the injury was accepted by the respondent’s insurer.
On 27 May 2021, a decision was made by the insurer to reduce the applicant’s payments of weekly compensation on the basis that he had capacity to earn $1,826.92 per week in suitable employment.
Liability to pay ongoing compensation for the injury was disputed in a notice issued pursuant to s 78 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (the 1998 Act) on 2 September 2021. That decision was maintained following internal review on 29 December 2021.
The present proceedings were commenced by an Application to Resolve a Dispute (ARD) lodged in the Personal Injury Commission (the Commission) on 2 August 2022.
The applicant claimed weekly compensation from 18 August 2021 to date and continuing in accordance with s 37 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act) and compensation pursuant to s 60 of the 1987 Act for the costs of and incidental to a right shoulder surgery proposed by Dr Wade Harper.
PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COMMISSION
The parties appeared for conciliation conference and arbitration hearing in Sydney on 31 October 2022. The applicant was represented by Mr Ian Collins, solicitor. The respondent was represented by Mr Tom Grimes of counsel, instructed by Ms Jenny Nichols. A representative from the insurer, Mr Lacsina, was also present.
During the conciliation conference, agreement was reached between the parties that the respondent would, on a voluntary basis, pay the costs of and incidental to the right arthroscopic subacromial decompression with coracoacromial ligament release and bursectomy proposed by Dr Harper.
The parties were unable to reach agreement as to the quantum of the applicant’s entitlement to weekly compensation. Agreement was, however, reached that the applicable pre-injury average weekly earnings (PIAWE) figure was $2,800. The respondent conceded that the applicant was not fit for his pre-injury duties as a result of the injury. The applicant conceded that from 1 December 2021 onwards, he had the ability to earn and in fact earned $1,538.08 per week.
10.I am satisfied that the parties to the dispute understand the nature of the application and the legal implications of any assertion made in the information supplied. I have used my best endeavours in attempting to bring the parties to the dispute to a settlement acceptable to all of them. I am satisfied that the parties have had sufficient opportunity to explore settlement and that they have been unable to reach an agreed resolution of the dispute.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
11.The parties agree that the following issue remains in dispute:
(a) the extent and quantification of incapacity resulting from injury in the period from 18 August 2021 to date and continuing.
EVIDENCE
12.The following documents were in evidence before the Commission and considered in making this determination:
(a) ARD and attached documents;
(b) Reply and attached documents, and
(c) documents attached to an Application to Admit Late Documents lodged by the respondent on 26 October 2022.
13.Neither party applied to adduce oral evidence or cross-examine any witness.
14.Oral submissions were made and recorded at the arbitration hearing by both parties. Where necessary, those submissions are referred to below.
FINDINGS AND REASONS
15.According to a list of payments attached to the Reply, the applicant has received greater than 13 weeks but less than 130 weeks of weekly compensation. Weekly compensation is sought pursuant to s 37 of the 1987 Act.
16.Section 37 of the 1987 Act provides:
“37 Weekly payments during second entitlement period (weeks 14–130)
(1) The weekly payment of compensation to which an injured worker who has no current work capacity is entitled during the second entitlement period is to be at the rate of 80% of the worker’s pre-injury average weekly earnings.
(2) The weekly payment of compensation to which an injured worker who has current work capacity and has returned to work for not less than 15 hours per week is entitled during the second entitlement period is to be at the lesser of the following rates—
(a) 95% of the worker’s pre-injury average weekly earnings, less the worker’s current weekly earnings,
(b) the maximum weekly compensation amount, less the worker’s current weekly earnings.
(3) The weekly payment of compensation to which an injured worker who has current work capacity and has returned to work for less than 15 hours per week (or who has not returned to work) is entitled during the second entitlement period is to be at the lesser of the following rates—
(a) 80% of the worker’s pre-injury average weekly earnings, less the worker’s current weekly earnings,
(b) the maximum weekly compensation amount, less the worker’s current weekly earnings.”
17.Section 37 requires a determination as to whether, during the relevant period, the applicant had “no current work capacity” or “current work capacity”. Those expressions are defined in item 9 of Schedule 3 to the 1987 Act as follows:
“9 Meaning of ‘current work capacity’ and ‘no current work capacity’
(1) An injured worker has current work capacity if the worker has a present inability arising from the injury such that the worker is able to return to the worker’s pre-injury employment, or is able to return to work in suitable employment, but the weekly amount that the worker has the capacity to earn in any such employment is less than the weekly amount that the worker had the capacity to earn in that employment immediately before the injury.
(2) An injured worker has no current work capacity if the worker has a present inability arising from an injury such that the worker is not able to return to work, either in the worker’s pre-injury employment or in suitable employment.”
18.The respondent has conceded in these proceedings that the applicant has, at all material times, had a present inability to return to work in his pre-injury employment.
19.Since 1 December 2021, the applicant has returned to work for greater than 15 hours per week, however, between 18 August 2021 and 30 November 2021, the applicant was not working greater than 15 hours per week. During this period, certificates of capacity issued by the applicant’s Nominated Treating Doctor certified the applicant as having capacity for suitable employment for eight hours per day, five days per week.
20.The applicant’s restrictions included a lifting/carrying capacity of 10kg to waist but not overhead; a 20kg pushing/pulling ability; avoiding repetitive movements, and avoiding loading the left arm to the point that the right arm was needed for support.
21.The applicant has not submitted that during this period he had less capacity than was certified by his doctor or that he had no current work capacity.
22.I am satisfied, as a result, that throughout the period of the claim, the applicant has had current work capacity.
23.Neither party has submitted that at any point in time, the applicant has had the capacity to earn in suitable employment an amount equal to or greater than that he had the capacity to earn immediately before the injury. The parties have agreed that the applicable PIAWE rate is $2,800.
24.The applicant’s PIAWE is subject to periodic indexation in accordance with s 82A of the 1987 Act. Applying indexation to the PIAWE, from 1 October 2021 onwards, the applicant’s PIAWE has been:
From
Indexation figure
Adjusted PIAWE
1 October 2021
1.0119
$2,833.32
1 April 2022
1.0184
$2,885.45
1 October 2022
1.0337
$2,982.69
25.The maximum weekly compensation amount for the purposes of s 35 of the 1987 Act has during the period of the claim been as follows:
From
To
Maximum Weekly Payment
1 April 2021
30 September 2021
$2,254.60
1 October 2021
31 March 2022
$2,282.90
1 April 2022
30 September 2022
$2,318.00
1 October 2022
31 March 2023
$2,341.70
26.As a result, in the period 18 August 2021 to 30 November 2021, s 37(3)(a) applies such that the rate of weekly compensation is 80% of PIAWE less current weekly earnings. From 18 August 2021 to 30 September 2021, 80% of PIAWE was $2,240, being less than the statutory maximum. From 1 October 2021 to 30 November 2021, 80% of the adjusted PIAWE rate was $2,266.66, being less that the statutory maximum.
27.From 1 December 2021 onwards, s 37(2)(b) applies such that the rate of weekly compensation is the maximum weekly compensation amount less current weekly earnings. That is because 95% of the adjusted PIAWE has at all times been higher than the statutory maximum from this date onwards.
28.The expression “current weekly earnings” is defined in item 8 of Schedule 3 to the 1987 Act as follows:
“Current weekly earnings, of an injured worker in relation to a week, means whichever of the following is the greater amount—
(a) the worker’s actual gross earnings in respect of that week,
(b) the weekly amount that the worker is able to earn in suitable employment.”
29.The applicant has conceded that his actual gross earnings in the period on and from 1 December 2021 have been $1,538.08. In addition, the respondent has submitted that the applicant’s actual gross earnings should include amounts earned in concurrent casual employment by Event Safety Services as evidenced by pay slips attached to its Application to Admit Late Documents. Those payslips show earnings of $90 for the period 26 January 2022 to 8 February 2022 and $330 for the period 15 June 2022 to 28 June 2022. No objection was taken by the applicant to this submission.
30.The primary dispute between the parties is “the weekly amount that the worker is able to earn in suitable employment”.
31.The expression “suitable employment” is defined in s 32A of the 1987 Act as:
“suitable employment, in relation to a worker, means employment in work for which the worker is currently suited—
(a) having regard to—
(i) the nature of the worker’s incapacity and the details provided in medical information including, but not limited to, any certificate of capacity supplied by the worker (under section 44B), and
(ii) the worker’s age, education, skills and work experience, and
(iii) any plan or document prepared as part of the return to work planning process, including an injury management plan under Chapter 3 of the 1998 Act, and
(iv) any occupational rehabilitation services that are being, or have been, provided to or for the worker, and
(v) such other matters as the Workers Compensation Guidelines may specify, and
(b) regardless of—
(i) whether the work or the employment is available, and
(ii) whether the work or the employment is of a type or nature that is generally available in the employment market, and
(iii) the nature of the worker’s pre-injury employment, and
(iv) the worker’s place of residence.”
32.In Wollongong Nursing Home Pty Ltd v Dewar[1], Roche DP considered the meaning of ‘suitable employment’ in s 32A and said:
[1] [2014] NSWWCCPD 55.
“In light of the 2012 amendments, care must be exercised in relying on Lawarra Nominees and Woods. Under those authorities, the task of assessing whether a worker was wholly or partially incapacitated was a ‘practical exercise’ that ‘involve[d] the assessment of a capacity ‘for work’ having regard to the realities of the labour market in which [the worker] is to be engaged’ (Mahoney P at [30] in Lawarra Nominees).
This approach was consistent with the High Court’s decision in Arnotts Snack Products Pty Ltd v Yacob [1985] HCA 2; 155 CLR 171, where Mason, Wilson, Deane and Dawson JJ said (at 178) that ‘the concept of partial incapacity for work is that of reduced physical capacity, by reason of physical disability, for actually doing work in the labour market in which the employee was working or might reasonably be expected to work’ (emphasis added).
It is the emphasised words in the two preceding paragraphs that have effectively been eliminated by the directions in s 32A that employment for which the worker is currently suited is determined ‘regardless of’ whether the work or employment is ‘available’ and regardless of whether it is ‘of a type or nature that is generally available in the employment market’. However, other aspects of Lawarra Nominees and Woods remain relevant in determining whether a worker is ‘suited’ for suitable employment.
There is nothing in the context of the definition of suitable employment to suggest that ‘available’ should be given anything other than its relevant dictionary meaning. The third meaning attributed to ‘available’ in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford University Press, 6th ed, 2007) is ‘[a]ble to be used or turned to account; at one’s disposal; within one’s reach, obtainable’. Thus, just because the suitable employment the worker is able to perform is not ‘available’ in the labour market in which the employee was working or might reasonably be expected to work does not justify a finding that the worker has no current work capacity.
However, while the new definition of suitable employment has eliminated the geographical labour market from consideration, it has not eliminated the fact that ‘suitable employment’ must be determined by reference to what the worker is physically (and psychologically) capable of doing, having regard to the worker’s ‘inability arising from an injury’. Suitable employment means “employment in work for which the worker is currently suited” (emphasis added).”
33.Further:
“Therefore, the determination of whether a worker is ‘able to return to work in suitable employment’ is not a totally theoretical or academic exercise and Mason P’s reference to the ‘eye of the needle’ test may still be relevant in many cases. To use his Honour’s example, a labourer who is rendered a quadriplegic may well be able to perform tasks using only his voice. However, whether, under the new provisions, he or she would be found to have no current work capacity will depend on a realistic assessment of the matters listed at (a) and (b) of the definition of suitable employment. Depending on the evidence, it is difficult to see that work tasks that are totally artificial, because they have been made up in order to comply with an employer’s obligations to provide suitable work under s 49 of the 1998 Act, and do not exist in any labour market in Australia, will be suitable employment.”
34.In Gradan Bathrooms Pty Ltd v Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer[2], Snell DP referred to the comments above and stated:
[2] [2020] NSWWCCPD 36.
“The short point is that whether a worker has an ability to return to work in suitable employment depends on whether there are real jobs in the labour market in which the injured worker would be able to work. If there are not, then an injured worker will not have current work capacity.”
Respondent’s submissions
35.The respondent’s insurer has, in its dispute notices, asserted that the weekly amount the applicant is able to earn in suitable employment is $1,826.92, which equivalent to an annual salary of $95,000. In support of this position, the respondent relies on ‘Amendment - Vocational Assessment’ and ‘Labour Market Analysis’ reports prepared by Konekt Workcare, both dated 6 May 2021. In those reports, the applicant was assessed as being competitive as a job seeker in the open labour market for three occupations, being:
(a) energy trader (commodities trader);
(b) statistician/data scientist/analyst’ and
(c) actuary.
36.The reports indicated that, with the applicant’s experience, no further training would be required for any of these occupations. On-the-job training would be sufficient. The reports indicated that each of the occupations was suitable having regard to the applicant’s transferable skills. Medical approval for each of the occupations had been provided by the applicant’s treating doctor. The likely gross weekly earnings for each occupation was greater than $2,196.92 per week, based on a 40 hour working week.
37.In the Labour Market Analysis report, position descriptions, physical/cognitive/psychological requirements, training requirements and job availability information was provided for each of the three identified occupations. Details of contact with three employers in which the applicant’s suitability for roles within each occupation were discussed were provided.
38.In the Vocational Assessment report, it was noted that the applicant had proficient reading, writing and verbal skills. The applicant was noted to have completed a secondary education, achieving an ATAR of 99.90. The applicant also held a Bachelor of Science (Advanced) (Honours) degree obtained from the Australian National University in 2017. The applicant’s primary language was English and he had above average mathematical skills. The applicant’s common computer skills were described as “strong”. The applicant was noted to have “basic” knowledge in C++ and Pascal programming languages and “advanced” skills in Python.
39.The applicant’s prior employment history included Aussie Rules umpiring, customer service roles in a rural supplies retail store and outdoor clothing retail store. The applicant was a course tutor during his first and second years of university and a casual event coordinator. The applicant’s only full-time employment was with the respondent as an IRATA geotechnician.
40.At the arbitration hearing, the respondent submitted that the applicant was a very capable worker with advanced academic skills. The applicant had a wide range of experience, in a variety of roles, and had been identified in the Konekt reports as being extremely well qualified for each of the identified roles. The applicant’s transferable skills arising from his employment history and his specific skill set, including his tertiary education and computer programming knowledge, made him an ideal candidate for any entry-level positions. According to the reports, the applicant’s lack of experience was not significant and the applicant was in essentially the same position as any other entry-level or postgraduate worker.
41.The respondent observed that a junior (Graduate Program) position as a quant trader at Tibra had been identified in the Konekt reports as suitable. This required a degree in mathematics, development experience, C++ and/or Python and experience in data analysis was a bonus, but not essential. The contact for the employer advised that the applicant would be a “highly competitive” candidate and the program would provide mentorship and coaching as well as significant on-the-job training. Remuneration for the position was $110,000 gross per annum.
42.The respondent also referred, in particular, to a junior data scientist role with Woolworths Group. The key requirements for the role included a strong academic background (PhD or Masters) in a highly relevant discipline, commercial exposure to working in data science, strong stakeholder engagement and relationship management skills. Skills in a number of programming languages and a strong appreciation of a range of data science, machine learning and statistical modelling techniques were required. The recruiter contacted advised that the applicant would be considered a “competitive” candidate and noted that the role was designed for those who have little experience but meet the qualifications. Remuneration for the role was $100,000 gross per annum.
43.The respondent also highlighted an actuarial pricing and insights executive role at British American Tobacco. This role required a tertiary degree in the field of analytics such as mathematics, strong analytical ability, planning and organisation skills, an ability to build and influence working relationships and strong proficiency in a number of data analytics platforms. The recruiter contacted advised that the applicant would be considered a “highly competitive” candidate for the role. The role would provide on-the-job training and was an entry level role, with ongoing potential. Remuneration for the role commenced at $95,000 per annum.
44.The respondent submitted that notwithstanding the applicant’s lack of experience in the occupations identified by Konekt, it was apparent that he was qualified for the roles which did not require experience and which provided on-the-job training. Based on the applicant’s previous academic training and achievements, he would be well-placed to pick up these jobs.
45.The respondent noted that the applicant had commenced a Masters degree in 2021 and had obtained excellent grades.
46.The respondent submitted that the amount the applicant was able to earn in suitable employment, as identified in the Konekt reports, was greater than his actual earnings.
Applicant’s submissions
47.The applicant provided a detailed response to the Konekt reports in a statement dated 4 July 2022. The applicant submitted that each of the roles identified in the Konekt reports was beyond his current reach. The applicant had not received sufficient support to obtain one of those jobs and had made reasonable efforts towards finding work in these areas, including by up- skilling. The applicant submitted that his current earning potential was lower than the $95,000 claimed by the respondent.
48.The applicant said that after graduating from university in late 2017, the applicant was unable to find work in his field of study due to a lack of industry experience and post-graduate level education. The applicant applied for many jobs in computer programming, data science, actuarial work and even atmospheric modelling. The applicant decided to pursue work in the field of rope access and his highly active lifestyle and rock climbing experience were instrumental to obtaining work in this field.
49.The applicant said that during 2021, he studied full-time at the University of New South Wales in a Masters of Financial Mathematics. At the same time, the applicant was applying for positions with a number of companies. The applicant was unsuccessful in obtaining work until, in late 2021, when he was offered an entry-level energy operations analyst role on a salary of $80,000 per annum plus super. The applicant submitted that his current salary was considered generous given that an entry-level analyst wage was identified on ‘glassdoor.com.au’ as $60,000 per annum.
50.The applicant said his current qualifications and experience level did not qualify him for any of the positions recommended by Konekt. The applicant said he had previously applied for graduate positions as a quant trader but was unable to pass technical tests even when fresh out of his undergraduate degree. The other energy trader roles required actual work experience.
51.The applicant said he had actually applied for a data science position with Woolworths but had been unsuccessful. The other data scientist positions identified in the Konekt report required work experience that the applicant did not possess.
52.The applicant submitted that according to the Konekt report, to work as an actuary, a bachelors degree in actuarial studies or actuarial science was required. These were qualifications the applicant did not possess. It was also common to complete postgraduate studies in this field.
53.The applicant submitted that he was working at the limit of his capacity. The applicant’s medico-legal expert, Dr Todd Gothelf had, in his report of 5 December 2021, expressed the opinion that the applicant’s current job was suitable and fell within his capacity.
54.Although the applicant had a high degree of academic ability and tertiary qualifications in mathematics, each of the roles identified by Konekt required additional work experience or postgraduate studies.
55.The applicant submitted that he was working in suitable employment and there was no evidence of alternative suitable employment, having regard to the applicant’s age, education and experience.
Consideration
56.I am satisfied on the evidence before me that the applicant has, since 1 December 2021, been employed in suitable employment, having regard to his age, education, skills and work experience. The applicant’s current role falls within the broad categories of occupation identified as suitable in the Konekt reports and utilises his academic qualifications and the computer and mathematical skills obtained during the course of his undergraduate studies.
57.Although the applicant was not working in this field prior to 1 December 2021, having regard to the medical and factual evidence, I am satisfied that throughout the period of weekly compensation claimed in these proceedings, the applicant had capacity to perform the same type of work and earn an equivalent amount.
58.In considering whether the applicant has, during the relevant period, had the ability to earn more than his current actual earnings in suitable employment, it is necessary to consider the positions identified in the Konekt reports.
59.Notwithstanding the assessment made by Konekt that these roles were suitable for the applicant, I accept the applicant’s submission that the majority of those roles in fact required qualifications, whether postgraduate or otherwise, and experience, which the applicant did not currently possess.
60.Whilst three of the positions highlighted by the respondent in its submissions were described as “graduate” or “entry-level” positions, it is relevant to note that as that August 2021, it had been approximately 3½ years since the applicant completed his undergraduate qualification. In that period, the applicant had been working outside his field of study, for the respondent. The applicant’s employment history and the passage of time since the applicant had studied mathematics and programming is a relevant consideration in assessing his ability to obtain work in those roles. I accept that these circumstances placed the applicant at a competitive disadvantage compared to other candidates for graduate or entry-level positions who were fresh out of university or who had been working within the field.
61.The material before the Commission indicates that the applicant has been compliant with Konekt’s recommendations, by attempting to upgrade his skills and commencing a post-graduate qualification in financial mathematics. The evidence also indicates that the applicant has sacrificed his preference for working outdoors in order to obtain suitable employment within his capacity in light of his injury. The evidence indicates that the applicant has actively sought employment in the occupations recommended Konekt but has been unsuccessful in obtaining roles other than the one he currently occupies. The applicant’s evidence in this regard is credible and confirmed by the Konekt reports which indicate that the applicant had been shortlisted for roles but had not yet been successful due to other, more experienced applicants, applying for the same positions.
62.The Konekt reports identified that the applicant’s high pre-injury earnings, which were accounted for by the high degree of risk and heavy nature of his pre-injury employment, may not be able to be matched in non-physically demanding roles. It was noted that the applicant may need to temporarily accept lower paid roles with higher future earning potential.
63.The applicant is clearly highly intelligent and has excellent academic ability. The applicant also has relevant qualifications, skills and interests to the roles identified by Konekt. For the reasons given above, however, I am not satisfied that the applicant has, throughout the period of weekly compensation claimed, had a realistic ability to obtain employment in the higher paid roles identified by Konekt. No other suitable employment has been identified on the evidence before me.
64.I am satisfied that the applicant’s current earnings are commensurate with his age, education, skills and work experience, as well as his physical and psychological capacity. I am not satisfied that the applicant has had the ability to earn more than his current actual earnings in suitable employment.
65.In all the circumstances, I am satisfied that the amount constituting the applicant’s current weekly earnings, has at all relevant times been $1,538.08, other than in the two weeks identified by the respondent in which the applicant’s actual gross earnings were higher due to concurrent casual employment.
66.It follows that the applicant is entitled to an award of weekly compensation as follows:
(a) from 18 August 2021 to 30 September 2021 at the rate of $701.92 per week ($2,800 x 0.8 - $1,538.08);
(b) from 1 October 2021 to 30 November 2021 at the rate of $728.58 per week ($2,833.32 x 0.8 - $1,538.08);
(c) from 1 December 2021 to 31 March 2022 at the rate of $744.82 per week ($2,282.90 - $1,538.08);
(d) from 1 April 2022 to 30 September 2022 at the rate of $779.92 per week ($2,318.00 - $1,538.08), and
(e) from 1 October 2022 to date and continuing at the rate of $803.62 per week ($2,341.70 - $1,538.08).
67.The weekly rates identified above are to be reduced as follows:
(a) by $90 for the week commencing 26 January 2022, and
(b) by $330 for the week commencing 15 June 2022.
68.The respondent is to have credit for payments already made during the periods above.
69.The parties will have liberty to apply within seven days of receiving notification of this determination with respect to the Commission’s calculations.
0
3
0