Work Cover Benefit Of Queensland Transport

Requirements for compensation benefits

Discuss about the Work Cover Benefit of Queensland Transport.

Mattew Fitzwilliam started his employment journey at online personnel unit then to Queensland transport organization and later at Regal Employment Company. In all these three units, he offered his services as expected and got his agreed pay. To start with, his services were tamed as good as none of the employers is structured arguing about him not performing his duties as expected. He is said to answer all related work calls and carried out his duties well and on time without delays. Even when it’s late at night the Queensland manager calls him over for duties and he responds. Having received all his pay with only the tax deductions, it shows that Mattew was able to protect his trust with the employers. Having passed the interview conducted by the Queensland manager and being accepted by the Regal online company was a sign that he was a competent employee who worked according to the set rules and expectations.

Though with the many positive praises and qualifications that Mattew had shown in his line of work, to be an employee of a specific organization one has to fulfill some conditions.  According to Stevens V Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd (1985) 63 ALR 513, an employee is characterized by a number of multi-factors that some are also deduced from the international act of employment acts (Blanpain,et al, 2010). These characteristics are very important to both the employee and the employer. As a result, an employer is able to understand the rights on an employee and also his role in influencing the employee. The employee is able to understand his or her rights from the employer and when the rights should be honored. Examples of these rights include right to protection while at work, right to payment, right to a legible health work cover, right to do the right things among many others. Mattew Fitzwilliam case on whether he has a right to an accident cover from Queensland Transport Company will be determined from the discussion below (Hardy, 2011).

The employer should be covered by a workers compensation cover. For any employee to be able to get a healthy cover compensation or benefit, his or her employer should be covered first. This depends from one business unit to the other as not all employers take this covers depending on the type of business. Most states set the number of employees an employer must have to take a cover while others do not give specifications.  To be able to deal with this, it’s important to discover if his employer was covered by a health cover. In cases where the employer has a cover, the person to claim this cover should be their employee. Referring to the multifactor test, Mattew was an employee at Queensland at one point because of the following reasons;

Case of Matthew Fitzwilliam

The rate of control that Matthew received from Queensland manager signified him as an employee of the company. He could always receive work calls and rush to know what he was expected to do. As a casual worker paid hourly, he showed dedication to all directions given to him, following all the set rules. He was obligated to work without a fail and could even reply to work calls even at late hours just to make sure that he obeyed all the orders. Putting on his uniforms and badges that are identified with the company was a sign to show that he was an employee and that he followed all the expectations on him as an employee of the company. Mattew following all the control factors at work ascertained him of obedience on the set national employment act.

Remuneration rate on deductions on Matthews’s salary indicated that his tax deductions signified him as a legal employee of the company. For his first 3 months working with Queensland Transport, he received his salary from online personnel (Fox, 2016). This signifies that for the first months the signed contract with the online company was not over or there was a relation between the two companies. Queensland later would pay him the salary in full amount less the tax deductions. This was a sign that Matthew was an electrician who worked well to deliver according to company’s set objectives. He was paid hourly at any time he was required to provide his services (Quinlan & Sokas, 2009).

Common duties of employees stated by law stated that all employees should respect and obey their employers. The employees should at all times carry out their duties with a lot of care and competence and without fail. Mattew Fitzwilliam always obeyed these key law duties since he was an employee. He kept his tools carefully and upgraded them with time as he provided faithful duties and services as required by law as he carried out all his tasks to completion. The employer in this controlled where, who, what and when any role was to be performed. According to the multi-factor test, Matthew’s place and time of work were determined by the company’s manager (Brusch & Büsch, 2013).

All the above factors signified that Mattew Fitzwilliam was a Queensland employee at some point as he worked under the company’s manager. He obeyed all set rules and even paid his tax deductions, the company also paid superannuation contributions during his time as an employee while in that company. However, this came to an end when he was referred to Regal employment and signed a job contract with the company. Though he had not signed a legal document with Queensland while starting his job tenure, he had all the responsibilities of a being the company’s employee and terminated it after signing the contract with Regal.

Determination of Matthew Fitzwilliam’s right to compensation benefits

According to employee act, all employees have a right to compensation benefits if they meet all the requirements and if their employers have the health work cover. These requirements include; being a recognized employee with the employer’s company and who have also been covered by the health cover (Klinger & Wolf, 2011). The injury or the kind of illness to be compensated for should be strictly work-related. If the employee or rather the employer is trying to claim for compensation where the injury was sustained while carrying our personnel-related duties it’s termed as illegal. Before a compensation is enhanced, a research is carried out to help understand the insurer the cause of the injury (Cabrelli, & Zahn, 2013).

Another factor for an employee to be compensated on a health cover is being in a certain group of workers. This illustrates that there different categories of workers who are compensated. Examples include domestic workers who are not always covered by their employers, agricultural and farm workers who also in most cases are not favored enough to have a health cover. Leased workers health cover in most cases differ on which employee is to pay the cover. Others are like the casual workers and another undocumented type of workers (Haagh, & Lorena, 2005). All these factors are followed to determine whether an employee has a right to claim for health compensation benefits or not.

Both multi-factor test and the act of employees state that only the rightful employees have a right to claim a health compensation benefit depending on whether it’s work-related. As a result of the discussion above, it’s determined that Matthew Fitzwilliam was no an employee at the time of the accident. His work contract with the Queensland Transport company came to an end when he signed a contract with the online personnel company and his terms of payment changed. From receiving his salary from the Queensland Transport he received from online personnel (Wilkey, 2011). The superannuation contribution made by his former employer was also terminated in joining the new company.

Therefore, Matthew Fitzwilliam has no clear right to claim for a compensation benefit on the injuries from the Queensland Transport Company. This is because though he was working for the company at the time of the accident, he was not the company’s employee (Berninghaus, et al, 2013). The company in question can only compensate him at its own will as he was working as a leased employee. At this time of the accident, Matthew was a legal employee of a different company and since the accident was not in the employer’s company, the Regal can as well compensate him willing. Unlike in the earlier policies, this is stated very clearly on who eligible for a health cover compensation (Harcourt, et al, 2007).

Conclusion

Alternatively, Matthew as a former employee of the Queensland Transport company and who have acted accordingly without failing the company can ask for a polite compensation. Without event talking too much of the issue, he can explain every tragedy relating to the accident to allow the company time to decide on whether to give a friendly contribution. On the other hand, Matthew legal employee can also compensate him according to the companies set terms for their leased employee. The company did not order the employee to work on the day of injury but was working for a friendly company. This would not be easy but can be eased by the employee step to explain each and every detail to what happened and the tragedy that befell him.

References

Berninghaus, S, Bleich, S, & Guth, W 2013, ‘The consequences of (de)regulation on employment duration and efficiency: an experimental study’, Economic Inquiry, 1, p. 1050, Academic OneFile, EBSCOhost, viewed 19 September 2017.

Blanpain, R., Nakakubo, H., & Araki, T. (2010). Regulation of fixed-term employment contracts: a comparative overview. Alphen aan den Rijn, Kluwer Law International.

Blaug, M 1993, ‘Education and the employment contract’, Education Economics, 1, 1, p. 21, Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 19 September 2017.

Brusch, M, & Büsch, V 2013, ‘Desire to continue working and job-related factors of older workers in Germany’, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, vol. 24, no. 7/8, pp. 970-979. Available from: 10.1080/14783363.2013.791111. [19 September 2017].

Cabrelli, D, & Zahn, R 2013, ‘The Elective and Automatic Theories of Termination in the Common Law of the Contract of Employment: Conundrum Resolved?’, Modern Law Review, 76, 6, pp. 1106-1119, Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 19 September 2017.

Fox, C 2016, ‘Unauthorized Welfare: The Origins of Immigrant Status Restrictions in American Social Policy’, Journal Of American History, 102, 4, pp. 1051-1074, Professional Development Collection, EBSCOhost, viewed 19 September 2017.

Haagh, L, & Lorena Cook, M 2005, ‘OCCUPATIONAL RIGHTS AND NEW EMPLOYMENT REGIMES IN EMERGENT ECONOMIES’, Policy Studies, 26, 2, pp. 171-197, Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 19 September 2017.

Harcourt, M, Wood, G, & Roper, I 2007, ‘The importance of legislated employment protection for worker commitment in coordinated market economies’, Journal Of Economic Issues, 4, p. 961, Academic OneFile, EBSCOhost, viewed 19 September 2017.

Hardy, S. T. (2011). Labour law in Great Britain. Alphen aan den Rijn, The Netherlands, Kluwer Law International.

Klinger, S, & Wolf, K 2011, ‘Disentangling sector and status effects in German employment growth’, Service Industries Journal, 31, 8, pp. 1257-1278, Hospitality & Tourism Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 19 September 2017.

Quinlan, M, & Sokas, R 2009, ‘Community Campaigns, Supply Chains, and Protecting the Health and Well-Being of Workers’, American Journal Of Public Health, 99, S3, pp. S538-S546, Professional Development Collection, EBSCOhost, viewed 19 September 2017.

Wilkey, RN 2011, ‘THE NON-NEGOTIABLE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT–DIAGNOSING THE EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS OF MEDICAL RESIDENTS’, Creighton Law Review, 44, 3, pp. 705-747, Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 19 September 2017.