Mayer and Comcare (Compensation)
[2015] AATA 925
•1 December 2015
Mayer and Comcare (Compensation) [2015] AATA 925 (1 December 2015)
Division
GENERAL DIVISION
File Number(s)
2014/4432
Re
Dennis Mayer
APPLICANT
And
Comcare
RESPONDENT
File Number(s)
2014/4433
Re
Terence Lowes
APPLICANT
And
Comcare
RESPONDENT
Decision
Tribunal Mr S. Webb, Member
Date 1 December 2015 Place Canberra The decision under review in application 2014/4432 is varied to the extent that Mr Mayer is entitled to weekly compensation for incapacity in the amounts set out in Schedule 2.
The decision under review in application 2014/4433 is varied to the extent that Mr Lowes is entitled to weekly compensation for incapacity in the amounts set out in Schedule 3.
As these decisions are favourable to each applicant, subject to submissions from either party received by the Tribunal within 14 days from this date, Comcare will be ordered to pay each party’s reasonable costs of the proceedings as agreed or taxed.
.............................[sgd]...........................................
Mr S. Webb, Member
Catchwords
COMPENSATION – accepted injuries – calculation of weekly compensation for incapacity - average weekly earnings pre injury – overtime - higher duties allowance – previous Tribunal decision - effect of industrial agreements on deemed employment level and normal weekly earnings amounts – adjustment of rate of weekly compensation – decisions varied.
Legislation
Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971 (Cth) s 25
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) ss 4, 8, 9, 19, 124
Cases
Re Mayer & Lowes and Comcare [2014] AATA 55
Secondary materials
Australian Federal Police Change Agreement 1995
Australian Federal Police Certified Agreement 1999-2002
Australian Federal Police Certified Agreement 2003-2006
REASONS FOR DECISION
Mr S. Webb, Member
1 December 2015
1. Many years ago, the applicants in these proceedings, Dennis Mayer and Terence Lowes, were injured, separately, in employment by the Australian Federal Police (AFP). They each claimed and were paid compensation. Both men were retired on invalidity grounds. After a long period, each of them disputed determinations made by Comcare officers in respect of weekly compensation for incapacity. The disputes came before the Tribunal, on review. The Tribunal, differently constituted, determined matters relating to the pre-injury earnings of each man (which forms the basis of the calculation of weekly compensation for incapacity to work) and remitted the applications to Comcare: Re Mayer & Lowes and Comcare (the 2014 decision).
2. Subsequently, Comcare determined the weekly compensation entitlements of Mr Mayer and Mr Lowes. Each sought reconsideration and, being unhappy with the reviewable decisions made, again applied for review.
3. Each application raises slightly different issues, albeit on a common theme under the applicable legislation. I acceded to requests by the parties for the applications to be heard concurrently. Nevertheless, it is necessary to deal separately with the specific issues raised by each application.
Facts
4. The background facts in each case were set out by the Tribunal in the 2014 decision. For present purposes, it is not necessary to recite all the facts again.
5. The relevant facts in Mr Mayer’s case are:
a.(a) he was injured in the course of employment on 22 December 1981;
b.(b) at that time –
i.(i) his employment was based on 40 hours each week,
ii.(ii) he was performing higher duties as a Senior Sergeant,
iii.(iii) his substantive position was that of Sergeant, and
iv.(iv) he was at the top salary increment for a Sergeant;
c.(c) he was medically retired on 3 June 1983;
d.(d) in the 2014 decision, the Tribunal determined that 9.22 hours of overtime (3.72 hours at time and a half and 5.5 hours at double time rates) should be included in his average weekly earnings (AWE), pre-injury;
e.(e) on 20 June 2014, in a primary determination, Comcare calculated Mr Mayer’s weekly compensation entitlements;
f.(f) at Mr Mayer’s request the matter was reconsidered and a reconsideration decision was issued on 22 August 2014, varying the primary determination;
g.(g) Mr Mayer applied for review.
h. 6. The relevant facts in Mr Lowes’ case are:
a.(a) he was injured in the course of employment on 26 February 1985;
b.(b) at that time –
i.(i) his employment was based on 40 hours each week,
ii.(ii) his substantive position was that of Senior Constable, and
iii.(iii) he was at the top salary increment for a Senior Constable;
b.(c) in the 2014 decision, the Tribunal found that Mr Lowes had performed higher duties as a Sergeant and as a Senior Sergeant for which he was paid higher duties allowance in varying amounts from 4 July 1984 to 21 February 1985;
c.(d) on 16 December 1985, he was medically retired on invalidity grounds;
d.(e) on 23 June 2014, in a primary determination, Comcare calculated Mr Lowes’ weekly compensation entitlements;
e.(f) at Mr Lowes’ request the matter was reconsidered and a reconsideration decision was issued on 22 August 2014, affirming the primary determination;
f.(g) Mr Lowes applied for review.
g. 7. The background facts that are relevant to both applications are –
a.(a) on 5 August 1985, by formal agreement, a shorter working week for AFP officers commenced, replacing the previous 40 hour week with a 38 hour week;
b.(b) on 1 December 1988, the Federal Police Arbitral Tribunal determined new rates of pay for AFP members to reflect a new career structure and work value change;
a.(c) these changes came into effect on 1 January 1989 under AFP Career Structure Review Implementation Guidelines (extracts are in T10.4 and T10.5) (the Implementation Guidelines);
b.(d) in 1995, the AFP Change Agreement 1995 (the Change Agreement) came into effect, making provision for salary increases, changes to the rank structure of the AFP, and other matters;
c.(e) in 1998, variations to the Change Agreement (the Variation Agreement) came into effect, providing for salary increases, a 22 point salary structure, an Employee Management Plan (EMP) for performance appraisal and progression, and other matters;
d.(f) in 1999, the AFP Certified Agreement 1999-2002 (the 1999 Agreement) was certified and came into effect, making provision for changes in the way in which overtime was payable; and
e.(g) in 2003, the AFP 2003-2006 Certified Agreement (the 2003 Agreement) came into effect, providing for incremental salary advancement within a revised salary structure.
Issues
a. 8. In Mr Mayer’s case there are two issues:
a.(a) inclusion of an incremental salary increase in 1999 when calculating his normal weekly earnings amount; and
a.(b) correct quantification of overtime hours that should be included from 1 December 1999.
b. 9. In Mr Lowes’ case, there are four issues:
a.(a) correct calculation of his pre-injury average weekly earnings, including periods in which he performed higher duties;
a.(b) calculation of entitlements at the level of Sergeant from 1 January 1989;
b.(c) inclusion of an incremental salary increase in 1999 when calculating his normal weekly earnings amount; and
c.(d) correct quantification of overtime hours that should be included from 1 December 1999.
d. 10. With regard to the quantification of overtime hours for Mr Mayer and Mr Lowes, an additional issue was raised at the hearing for the first time, concerning an increase of two hours of overtime from 12 November 2001.
Hearing
a. 11. In the course of the hearing, it became apparent to me that there was some utility in allowing further mediated discussion between the parties on points of principle and detail. With the agreement of the parties, I adjourned the hearing temporarily in order to allow a mediated discussion to take place. This was done on the basis of the parties’ agreement that I, as presiding member, would step into the role of mediator and then, on resumption of the hearing, I would determine the issues resolved by consent and proceed to determine any outstanding issues in a binding decision. Substantial parts of the mediated discussion were conducted privately, but parts of the mediation process were conducted in full session in the hearing room.
b. 12. In the result, the parties reached agreement on all substantive issues but for the issue raised at the last moment by Mr Mayer and Mr Lowes in respect of the inclusion of two hours of overtime from 12 November 2001.
c. 13. The hearing resumed. I read into the transcript the terms agreed by the parties. The agreed terms are –
a.(a) in Mr Mayer’s application:
i.(i) pursuant to the application of Attachment 14 to the AFP Certified Agreement 1999-2002 (the 1999 Agreement), the applicant is entitled to an increase in increment from Grade 12.21 ($53,416 p.a.) to Grade 12.3 ($54,596 p.a.) with effect from 6 October 1999; and
i.(ii) as at 3 February 2000, the applicant’s entitlement to overtime is calculated on the basis of 7.22 hours per week paid at double time up to 11 November 2001.
b.(b) In Mr Lowes’ application:
i.(i) the schedule of calculations of AWE provided to the Tribunal on 19 October 2015, which identifies an AWE of $928.07 as at 1 January 1989 (Schedule 1 to this decision), is accepted up until that date and will be used for the purposes of calculating entitlements to compensation for incapacity;
ii.(ii) pursuant to the application of Attachment 14 to the 1999 Agreement, the applicant is entitled to an increase in increment from Grade 12.21 ($53,416 p.a.) to Grade 12.3 ($54,596 p.a.) with effect from 17 October 1999; and
iii.(iii) as at 3 February 2000, the applicant’s entitlement to overtime is calculated on the basis of 2.37 hours per week paid at double time up to 11 November 2001.
14. Much time has passed since the dates on which Mr Mayer and Mr Lowes were injured. There are substantial gaps in the available documentation.
15. Nevertheless, having considered the voluminous materials and the submissions made by the parties, I am satisfied that the terms agreed are supported by evidence and are consistent with the legislation and industrial agreements that must be applied.
16. I issued orders for –
a.(a) Comcare to calculate the weekly compensation entitlements of each applicant on the basis of the agreed terms;
b.(b) each applicant to identify any errors in the calculations; and
c.(c) each party to make written submissions on the additional issue concerning an alleged change to overtime arrangements as of 12 November 2001.
a. 17. I have received documents from the parties pursuant to the orders, including a schedule setting out Comcare’s calculations of weekly compensation for Mr Mayer and Mr Lowes based on the agreed terms. I have placed the calculations for Mr Mayer in Schedule 2 to this decision and the calculations for Mr Lowes into Schedule 3.
b. 18. I understand that the parties adhere to the terms agreed, but three issues remain in dispute –
a.(a) whether incremental salary increases for Mr Mayer and Mr Lowes should be paid in 2004 and 2005 rather than in 2003 and 2004;
b.(b) whether Mr Mayer and Mr Lowes are entitled to have two hours of overtime retrospectively reinstated from 12 November 2001; and
c.(c) whether there is an arithmetic error in the calculation of the penalty component of Mr Lowes’ weekly compensation for incapacity from 26 February 1985.
d. 19. This last issue was subsequently resolved by agreement and withdrawn by Mr Lowes’ legal representative during a telephone directions hearing. In a nutshell, the issue turned on the base weekly hours being worked by Mr Lowes as of the date of his injury. I am satisfied that this was 40 hours and, as the agreement of the parties rests on that point, I am satisfied that there is no error in the calculation of the penalty component of Mr Lowes’ weekly compensation from 26 February 1985 to 1 January 1989 in the terms agreed.
Payment of incremental salary increases
a. 20. Comcare asserts that the incremental salary increase from Grade 12.21 to Grade 12.3 in 1999 places Mr Mayer and Mr Lowes at the top increment point under the 1999 Agreement. In Comcare’s submission, clause 8 of Part 2 of the AFP Certified Agreement 2003-2006 (the 2003 Agreement) precludes incremental salary advancement for an employee at the top increment point of his or her current grade under the 1999 Agreement for a 12 month period from certification. It is for this reason, Comcare says, that Mr Mayer and Mr Lowes cannot be paid incremental salary advancement under the 2003 Agreement until 2004.
b. 21. Mr Mayer and Mr Lowes argue that they are entitled to payment of incremental salary increases in 2003 and 2004 in consequence of the terms agreed, rather than in 2004 and 2005 as Comcare asserts. This, so the argument goes, is because they were not at the top increment point under the 2003 Agreement – a Grade 12.3 under the 1999 Agreement is the same as a Grade 13.1 which translates to a Grade 7.1 under the 2003 Agreement, whereas the top increment at this level under the 2003 Agreement is a Grade 7.3.
c. 22. The issue is to be determined with reference to clauses 7 and 8 of Part 2 of the 2003 Agreement –
Salary Increments
7. Progression to the next salary point within a Band for existing eligible employees of the AFP at the time of certification of this Agreement will remain at 1 July until they are advanced to a higher Band. Further progression within a Band will be at the anniversary date of the employee’s last advancement, or their engagement in a particular role…
8. Where an employee is at the top increment point of their current Grade under the provisions of the 1999 – 2002 Certified Agreement, they will not move to the next salary point available to them under the provisions of this Agreement for a period of 12 months from the certification of this Agreement.
a. 23. Having regard to the AFP salary scales from 1998 to 2002, it is quite clear that the top increment point in the Grade 12 Band is Grade 12.3, whereas the top increment in the Grade 13 Band is Grade 13.3.
b. 24. Even though there are substantial gaps in the available materials, the Tribunal’s task is to make the correct or preferable decision for the purposes of s 25 of the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971 (the 1971 Act) and ss 8 and 124 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (the 1988 Act).
c. 25. On the balance of the evidence, it is not presently established that Mr Lowes or Mr Mayer progressed from a Grade 12.21 or from a Grade 12.3 to a Grade 13.1 under the 1999 Agreement. Incremental advancement within a salary Band is one thing; advancement to a higher salary Band is another. I am satisfied that by operation of s 9.3 of the Increment Advancement Protocol in Attachment 14 to the 1999 Agreement the appropriate incremental increase translation was within the Grade 12 Band - from Grade 12.21 to Grade 12.3 under the 1999 Agreement.
d. 26. From this it follows that when Mr Mayer and Mr Lowes progressed from Grade 12.21 to Grade 12.3, each was then at the top increment point for their current grade under the 1999 Agreement.
e. 27. Attention was drawn to a previous consent decision of the Tribunal in Re Daff and Comcare. There are two things to say about this decision. Firstly, the Tribunal presently is not bound by this decision. Secondly, the basis of evidence and reasoning supporting the decision are not apparent and I am not able to ascertain the extent to which, if at all, the facts in Mr Daff’s case are consistent with those in Mr Mayer’s and Mr Lowes’ cases.
f. 28. On the materials before me, I am satisfied that Mr Mayer and Mr Lowes did not progress to the Grade 13.1 level. Their incremental progression to Grade 12.3 was within a salary Band. I am not persuaded that advancement to a higher salary Band at the Grade 13 level is made out. I note that Grade 12.3 under the 1999 Agreement translates to Grade 6.3 under the 2003 Agreement, not to Grade 7.1.
g. 29. That being so, clause 8 of the 2003 Agreement has effect. Mr Mayer and Mr Lowes are not entitled, therefore, to advance to a higher salary point under the 2003 Agreement for a period of 12 months after certification of that Agreement. For this reason, Mr Mayer and Mr Lowes are not entitled to payment of incremental salary increases under the 2003 Agreement until reaching the applicable 12 month anniversary date in 2004.
Reinstatement of two hours of overtime
a. 30. Under the agreed terms, the parties accept that the overtime component of Mr Mayer’s and Mr Lowes’ weekly compensation entitlement reduced by two hours as of 3 February 2000 under the 1999 Agreement. The calculations in Schedule 2 and Schedule 3 reflect this change.
b. 31. Mr Mayer and Mr Lowes argue that the two hours of overtime was reinstated pursuant to a decision of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission on 1 March 2002 (the AIRC decision). The reinstatement, they say, has been reflected in calculations and determinations made in other cases. I note the documents referencing other former AFP officers and a previous Comcare determination that are attached to written submissions filed on behalf of Mr Mayer and Mr Lowes.
c. 32. Comcare maintains that the AIRC decision is not binding and, in any event, it does not apply in the manner contended for by Mr Mayer and Mr Lowes.
d. 33. In order to properly understand these issues it is necessary to set out operative provisions of the 1999 Agreement –
19.1 Overtime Payment – Community Operations
All employees identified in paragraph 20. will be expected to work a rostered 40 hour week with extra duty paid at double time after 84 hours has been worked in one pay fortnight. These additional hours are not mandatory, but are to be worked flexibly on an operational as needs basis.
20.1.2 Where there is a demonstrated operational requirement for employees to work in excess of these hours, then an overtime payment of double the ordinary time rate at base pay rates shall apply for any extra duty performed in excess of 84 hours worked in one pay fortnight. The Manager of the area will be responsible for authorising payment of overtime.
…
20.1.5 All extra duty worked between 80 hours and below 84 hours will be recorded by the member and ratified by the relevant team leader or supervisor prior to lodging a fortnightly return (e.g. working 15 minutes after a shift to complete a diary record or a PROMIS entry.)
a. 34. It is under this set of provisions that the overtime component of Mr Mayer’s and Mr Lowes’ weekly compensation is reduced by two hours.
b. 35. The AIRC decision does not expressly address the circumstance of former officers with ongoing incapacity for work as a result of a compensable injury, such as Mr Mayer and Mr Lowes. That is so despite the terms of the Notice of Dispute.
c. 36. For this reason it is necessary to address the issues raised in submissions on a principled basis, construing the terms of the 1999 Agreement and having regard to interpretive guidance provided by Deputy President Leary in the AIRC decision.
d. 37. The essential point of the relevant clauses of the 1999 Agreement is to make provision for a base 40 hour week, with provision for payment at the base rate for two additional hours per week that are flexible and not mandatory, and provision for payment of overtime for ‘extra duty’ worked in excess of 84 hours in a pay fortnight (42 hours in a week).
e. 38. Even though the drafting of these provisions is somewhat ambiguous and opaque, to my mind a clear distinction is made between extra duty that is ‘operational’ duty and other extra duty – ‘operational’ extra duty, being duty that is required for operational reasons, is treated as overtime paid at double time rates, whereas other extra duty, exemplified as administrative duties associated with a rostered shift, is treated as normal time paid at the base rate.
f. 39. In addressing these points, Deputy President Leary provided the following helpful guidance –
Flexible time –
•• Is in connection with a normal rostered shift;
•• Is only time at the commencement and completion of a normal rostered shift;
•• Does not require approval in advance;
•• Is not duty in an operational capacity or in replacement of another employee in such capacity;
•• Can be used for distance learning purposes if agreed between the parties;
•• Does not get recognised for Double-time overtime Payment; and
•• Is initiated by the employee.
The parties recognise that Overtime is paid extra duty in excess of a normal rostered shift. All Operational extra duty performed by an employee in excess of 40 hours per week is considered overtime.
Overtime –
•• Is duty performed either in connection with or distinct from a rostered shift;
•• Normally requires approval in advance of being worked;
•• May be for any purpose required as normally expected of the employee;
•• Is not reduced by flexible time nor calculated in connection with it;
•• Is recognised as Double-time “paid” duty at all times;
•• Cannot be directed unless in accordance with the Emergency provisions of the Certified Agreement or the Commissioner’s Powers as conferred by the Parliament.
•• Is calculated from the commencement of any extra duty, outside the employee’s normal rostered shift, until the completion of that extra duty.
a. 40. Considering these matters, there are several things to say.
b. 41. The differentiation of ‘operational’ extra duty from other ‘flexible’ extra duty under the 1999 Agreement is to be applied when calculating the compensation entitlements of a former employee with ongoing incapacity compensation entitlements.
c. 42. The difficulty, presently, is to determine how the 1999 Agreement overtime provisions should apply when calculating the weekly compensation entitlements of Mr Mayer and Mr Lowes. The industrial terms under which they were employed when they were injured are substantially different than those applying when the 1999 Agreement came into effect. It is agreed, correctly in my view, that their weekly overtime component should be reduced by two hours per week from 3 February 2000 by operation of the 1999 Agreement.
d. 43. To my mind, the AIRC decision does not alter this result. The AIRC decision does not provide express guidance on the calculation of compensation entitlements for incapacitated former employees, such as Mr Mayer and Mr Lowes. It does not invalidate the 1999 Agreement, but serves to explicate the provisions that are presently in issue.
e. 44. Had Mr Mayer and Mr Lowes continued in their former AFP employment, they would each be subject to the provisions of the 1999 Agreement. Nonetheless, when construing relevant provisions of the 1999 Agreement for the purposes of s 25 of the 1971 Act and s 8(6) of the 1988 Act, it is appropriate to have regard to the guidance provided by the AIRC.
f. 45. Under the 1999 Agreement, Mr Mayer and Mr Lowes would have base weekly hours in rostered shifts of 40 hours with provision for two ‘flexible hours’ of extra duty each week paid at the base hourly rate and ‘operational’ extra duty counted as overtime, paid at double the base hourly rate. Even if it is relevant to do so, having regard to the present materials and the 2014 decision, it is not possible now to assess the extent to which the pre-injury overtime component, 9.22 hours for Mr Mayer and 4.37 hours for Mr Lowes, included ‘operational’ extra duty and ‘flexible’ extra duty, if at all.
g. 46. I think that the usual case identified by Deputy President Leary, with the apparent agreement of the parties in the AIRC proceedings, is compelling –
The parties recognise that every employee working a normal rostered shift currently averages 30 minutes of flexible time.
a. 47. For present purposes, it is reasonable to expect that Mr Mayer and Mr Lowes would have conformed to the general case. The proposition that the entire overtime component of their weekly earnings calculations should be treated as ‘operational’ extra duty and not ‘flexible time’ is not made out.
b. 48. It appears that Comcare may have calculated the compensation entitlements of others on a different basis than the calculations it presently contends for. Consistency in government decision-making is a desirable objective, especially where the same legislation is being applied to similar facts, but it does not follow that Comcare is bound by previous decisions it has made if there is a compelling reason to justify a different approach or result and I am not bound by any such decisions in these proceedings.
c. 49. It should be noted that the calculation of weekly compensation for incapacity should not result in an injured former employee being better off than otherwise he or she would have been had the previous employment continued. To my mind, if Mr Mayer and Mr Lowes are excluded from the operation of the ‘flexible time’ provision under the 1999 Agreement from 12 November 2001, it is probable that each would be better off than otherwise would have occurred had their employment continued.
d. 50. For these reasons, I am satisfied that the reduction in the overtime provision for Mr Mayer and Mr Lowes of two hours per week from 3 February 2000 was not upset by the AIRC decision. To my mind, the proposition that those hours should be reinstated when calculating their weekly compensation entitlements from 12 November 2001 is not made out.
Arithmetic error – Mr Lowes
a. 51. Mr Lowes asserts that there is an arithmetic error in the calculation of his weekly entitlements that affects the amount agreed upon by the parties as of 1 January 1989 in Schedule 1. Those representing him argue that the principles underlying the terms agreed are not disputed, and it is not intended to go behind the agreement made.
b. 52. By a calculation process, Mr Lowes says that the hourly rate of his AWE is obtained by dividing his (then) base salary ($437.95) by his normal weekly hours (36.45 hours). The result of this calculation is $12.01 per hour. When this is applied across the penalty components of his AWE, a figure of $140.35 per week is obtained, producing a total AWE amount of $679.74 as at 26 February 1985.
c. 53. As I have said, this issue was resolved by agreement and withdrawn by Mr Lowes’ legal representative at a directions hearing before me on 30 November 2015.
d. 54. On the materials before me, I am satisfied that the agreement and withdrawal are well made.
e. 55. Mr Lowes relies on a notice issued by Comcare on 27 June 2012, in which his amount of normal weekly hours is said to be 36.45 hours. It is not clear to me that this is a correct assessment of his pre-injury weekly hours. As far as I can ascertain from the materials before me, as of 26 February 1985 his employment terms required a base of 40 hours per week.
f. 56. On this basis, the calculations under-pinning the amounts set out in Schedule 3 as of 1 January 1989 are correct – there is no arithmetic error.
g. 57. For this reason, I think the preferable decision is to accept the weekly amount in the terms agreed, that is an amount of $928.07 per week as of 1 January 1989.
h. 58. Thus, for the purposes of s 25 of the 1971 Act and ss 8 and 124 of the 1988 Act, I find that the average weekly earnings amounts calculated for Mr Lowes up to 1 January 1989 are in the amounts set out in Schedule 3.
Conclusion and decision
a. 59. I am reasonably satisfied that the terms agreed upon by the parties on 19 October 2015 are consistent with the legislation, the applicable industrial instruments and the evidence before me.
b. 60. Furthermore, I have found that Mr Mayer and Mr Lowes are not entitled under the 2003 Agreement to payment of an incremental salary increase in 2003 pursuant to their progression to Grade 12.3 under the 1999 Agreement. They are entitled to an incremental salary increase from 2004 under the 2003 Agreement.
c. 61. The effect of the 1999 Agreement is to reduce the overtime component of their compensation entitlements by two hours per week from 3 February 2000, as set out in the terms agreed. I have found that this reduction is not reinstated from 12 November 2001.
d. 62. I accept and find that the amounts set out in Schedule 2 to this decision are correct or preferable assessments of the weekly compensation entitlements of Mr Mayer and the amounts set out in Schedule 3 to this decision are correct or preferable assessments of the weekly compensation entitlements of Mr Lowes.
e. 63. Applying these amounts, it is for Comcare to pay any amounts due to Mr Mayer and Mr Lowes under the terms of this decision.
f. 64. The decision under review in application 2014/4432 is varied to the extent that Mr Mayer is entitled to weekly compensation for incapacity in the amounts set out in Schedule 2.
g. 65. The decision under review in application 2014/4433 is varied to the extent that Mr Lowes is entitled to weekly compensation for incapacity in the amounts set out in Schedule 3.
h. 66. As these decisions are favourable to each applicant, subject to submissions from either party received by the Tribunal within 14 days from this date, Comcare will be ordered to pay each party’s reasonable costs of the proceedings, as agreed or taxed.
I certify that the preceding 66 (sixty -six) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Mr S. Webb, Member .................................[sgd].......................................
Associate
Dated 1 December 2015
Date of hearing 19 October 2015 Counsel for the Applicant David Richards Advocate for the Applicant Bill Redpath Solicitors for the Applicant Blumers Lawyers Counsel for the Respondent Ben Dube Advocate for the Respondent Luke Woolley Solicitors for the Respondent Sparke Helmore
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Employment Law
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Causation
-
Remedies
-
Statutory Construction