work-related injuries in australia: who did and didn’t ... · who did and didn’t receive...
TRANSCRIPT
WORK-RELATED INJURIES IN AUSTRALIA: Who did and didn’t receive workers’ compensation in 2009–10
November 2011
Safe Work Australia
Work-related injuries in Australia: Who did and didn’t receive workers’
compensation in 2009–10
November 2011
Creative CommonsISBN 978-0-642-33303-2[PDF]
978-0-642-33304-9[RTF]
WiththeexceptionoftheSafeWorkAustralialogo,thisreportislicensedbySafeWorkAustraliaunderaCreativeCommons3.0AustraliaLicence.Toviewacopyofthislicence,visithttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/deed.en
Inessence,youarefreetocopy,communicateandadaptthework,aslongasyouattributetheworktoSafeWorkAustraliaandabidebytheotherlicensingterms.ThereportshouldbeattributedasWork-related injuries in Australia: Who did and didn’t receive workers’ compensation in 2009–10.
Enquiriesregardingthelicenceandanyuseofthereportarewelcomeat:
CopyrightOfficerCommunications,ITandKnowledgeManagementSafeWorkAustraliaGPOBox641CanberraACT2601Email:[email protected]
DisclaimerTheinformationprovidedinthisdocumentcanonlyassistyouinthemostgeneralway.ThisdocumentdoesnotreplaceanystatutoryrequirementsunderanyrelevantStateandTerritorylegislation.SafeWorkAustraliaacceptsnoliabilityarisingfromtheuseoforrelianceonthematerialcontainedonthisdocument,whichisprovidedonthebasisthatSafeWorkAustraliaisnottherebyengagedinrenderingprofessionaladvice.Beforerelyingonthematerial,usersshouldcarefullymaketheirownassessmentastoitsaccuracy,currency,completenessandrelevancefortheirpurposes,andshouldobtainanyappropriateprofessionaladvicerelevanttotheirparticularcircumstances.Totheextentthatthematerialinthisdocumentincludesviewsorrecommendationsofthirdparties,suchviewsorrecommendationsdonotnecessarilyreflecttheviewsofSafeWorkAustralianordotheyindicateacommitmenttoaparticularcourseofaction.
iii
ForewordSafeWorkAustraliausesworkers’compensationclaimsdataasitsprimarysourceofinformationtomeasureworkhealthandsafetyperformanceinAustralia.ThesedataarecollatedastheNationalDataSetforCompensation-basedStatistics(NDS).WhiletheNDShasmanystrengths,itdoesnotprovideinformationongroupsnotwell-coveredbyworkers’compensationschemes,suchastheself-employed.ThereforewhiletheNDScanprovidegoodinformationonthetypesandcircumstancesofwork-relatedinjury,itcannotprovideatotalmeasureofthenumberofworkersinjuredeachyear.
Toaddressthissituation,SafeWorkAustraliapartiallyfundedtheAustralianBureauofStatistics’Work-RelatedInjuries,Australia,2009–10(WRIS)survey,resultsfromwhichwerepublishedinDecember2010.Thissurveyisanupdateofthe2005–06surveypublishedinDecember2006.TheWRISwerecompiledfromdatacollectedintheMultipurposeHouseholdSurvey(MPHS)thatwasconductedthroughoutAustraliainthe2009–10financialyearasasupplementtotheABSmonthlyLabourForceSurvey(LFS).
TheWRIScollectedinformationoverthe2009–10periodfromasampleofpeopleaged15yearsandoverwhoworkedatsometimeinthelast12monthsandexperiencedawork-relatedinjuryorillnessinthatperiod.Arangeofdetailsabouttheirmostrecentwork-relatedinjuryorillnesswerecollected.Asthedataarefromasample,theresultsareadjustedorweightedtoinferresultsforthetotalworkingpopulation.Carehasbeentakentoonlyshowresultsthatareconsideredrobustenoughforanalysis.ThisisinaccordancewithABSprinciples.
Thedemographicsoftheworkersuchasage,sexandemploymentstatus(employee,employerorownaccountworker)aretakenfromresponsestotheLFS.However,duetodifferencesinthescopeandsamplesizeoftheMPHSandthatoftheLFS,theweightingprocessmayleadtosomevariationsbetweenlabourforceestimatesfromtheWRISandthosefromtheLFS.
Thisreportspecificallyfocussesonemployees.Thisgroupofworkersarethosewhoareentitledtoworkers’compensation.Thereportwillinvestigatethecharacteristicsoftheemployeeswhoappliedforandreceivedworkers’compensationfortheirwork-relatedinjury.AninjuryiscountedintheWRISsurveyiftheworkerfeltitaroseoutoftheiremployment.Thereisnorequirementfortheworkertoseekmedicalattentionfortheirinjuryasisthecasewithworkers’compensation.
v
ContentsSummary of findings vii
Compensated work-related injuries 1
Characteristics by sex 4
Characteristics by age group 7
Characteristics by employment status 10
Other characteristics 13
Characteristics by occupation 14
How the injury occurred 17
Type of injury 19
Financial assistance 21
Glossary 23
Appendix 1: Injury Classifications 25
Technical note 29
VII
Summary of findingsIn2009–10,567500employeeswereinjuredwhileworkingbutonly38%receivedworkers’compensation.Thisisaslightdecreaseonthenumberofemployeesinjuredin2005–06(570700)andanotableincreaseonthe33%whowerecompensated.Whilethisisencouragingtherehasbeenanincreaseinthenumberofemployeeswhoappliedforworkers’compensationbutdidnotreceiveitfrom3.8%ofinjuredemployeesin2005–06to5.4%in2009–10.ThesedatawerederivedfrominformationcollectedintheAustralianBureauofStatistics’Work-related Injuries Survey.
Theamountoftimetakenoffworkfollowinganinjuryimpactedonwhethertheemployeeappliedforworkers’compensation.Thedatashowedthatonly23%ofinjuredemployeeswhotooknotimeoffworkappliedforworkers’compensationcomparedwith73%ofinjuredemployeeswhotook5ormoredaysoffwork.
Maleemployeesweremorelikelythanfemaleemployeestoreceiveworkers’compensationthoughthegapbetweenthesexeshasclosedslightlyinthefouryearssincethatlastsurvey.In2005–06,38%ofmaleemployeesreceivedcompensationwhichroseto42%in2009–10whileforfemaleemployeestheproportionincreasedfrom26%to33%.
Agreaterproportionoffemaleemployeescomparedwithmaleemployeesfelttheirinjurywastoominortoclaim(32%and28%respectively).Agreaterproportionoffemaleemployeesalsothoughttheywerenotcoveredforworkers’compensationornoteligibleforit,10%comparedwith8%formaleemployees.
Ageplayedonlyasmallroleinwhetheranemployeereceivedworkers’compensationornot.In2009–10,36%ofinjuredemployeesinthe15–24yearsagegroupreceivedcompensationcomparedwith41%inthe55yearsandoveragegroup.Similarpatternsexistedforbothmaleandfemaleemployees.
Employeeswithleaveentitlementsweremorelikelythancasuals(employeeswithoutleaveentitlements)toreceivecompensation.In2009–10,48%ofemployeeswithleaveentitlementsreceivedcompensationcomparedwith32%ofemployeeswithoutleaveentitlements.Employeeswithoutleaveentitlementsweremorelikelytothinktheirinjurywastoominortoclaimandmorelikelytothinktheywerenotcoveredbyworkers’compensation.
Part-timeemployeeswerelesslikelytoapplyforcompensationcomparedwithfull-timeemployees.Part-timeshiftworkersweretheleastlikelytoapplyforcompensationofallemployeegroups.
EmployeesbornincountriesthatdidnothaveEnglishasitsmainlanguagecountrieswerelesslikelytoapplyforworkers’compensationcompared(34%)withthoseborninAustralia(44%)andthoseborninmainEnglishspeakingcountries(45%).
LabourersandMachineryoperators&driversweretheoccupationgroupsmostlikelytoreceiveworkers’compensation,whereasManagersandClerical&administrativeworkersweretheleastlikelytoreceiveit.
In2009–10injuriesincurredinfallswerethemostlikelytobecompensatedwhileinjuriesfromExposure to mental stressweretheleastlikelytobecompensated.
Sickleavewasthemostcommontypeoffinancialassistanceotherthanworkers’compensationaccessedbyinjuredemployees.Forinjuriesinvolvinglessthan5daysofwork,31%usedsickleave.Forinjuriesinvolving5ormoredays,20%of
injuredemployeesusedsickleave.Medicareorothersocialsecuritypaymentswereaccessedby7%ofallinjuredemployees.Thedatashowthatnofinancialassistancewasreceivedby12%ofemployeeswhoincurredinjuriesthatinvolved5ormoredaysoffwork.
WHO DID AND DIDN’T RECEIVE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION IN 2009–10...1
Compensated work-related injuriesOfthe12millionpeopleaged15yearsandoverwhohadworkedatsometimeinthetwelvemonthspriortointerviewin2009–10,638400experiencedawork-relatedinjuryorillness-equatingto5.3%ofworkers.Thisproportionisadecreasefromthe6.4%ofworkerswhoexperiencedawork-relatedinjuryorillnessin2005–06.Thesefiguresincludeinjuriesthatoccurredwhileworkingorwhiletravellingtoorfromwork.
Onlyemployeesarecoveredbyworkers’compensation.In2009–10,92%ofworkerswereemployees.Thisreportrelatesonlytothisgroup.Inaddition,workers’compensationfortraveltoorfromworkisonlyavailableinsomejurisdictionsandhenceinjuriesoccurringwhilecommutinghavebeenexcludedfromthisreport.
Table1showsthatthenumberofemployeeswhowereinjuredwhileworkingfellfrom570700in2005–06to567500in2009–10.Againstabackdropofincreasingemployment,thismeanstheincidenceratehasfallenfrom65injuriesper1000employeesin2005–06to58in2009–10.
Table 1: Employees with a work-related injury: number by workers’ compensation status, 2005–06 and 2009–10
Number of injuries(a) Percentage
Workers’ compensation status 2005–06 2009–10 2005–06 2009–10
Appliedforworkers’compensation 212600 244600 37% 43%
Receivedworkers’compensation 190700 214100 33% 38%
Didnotreceiveworkers’compensation 21900 30600 4% 5%
Didnotapplyforworkers’compensation 358100 322900 63% 57%
Total injured employees 570 700 567 500 100% 100%
(a)numbersareroundedtonearest100andmaynotaddtototals
In2009–10,43%ofinjuredemployeesappliedforworkers’compensation,animprovementonthe37%recordedin2005–06.However,thenumberofemployeeswhoappliedforworkers’compensationbutdidnotreceiveit(claimwasrejected)hasalsogrownfrom3.8%ofinjuredemployeesin2005–06to5.4%in2009–10.ThesedataareshowngraphicallyinFigure1.
Figure 1: Employees with a work-related injury: Number by compensation status, 2005–06 and 2009–10
100
200
300
400
500
600
2005–06 2009–10
Num
ber o
f in
jure
d em
ploy
ees
('000
)
Total injured employees Applied for workers' compensation Received workers' compensation
2 ... SAFE WORK AUSTRALIA
Figure2andTable2showthattheproportionofinjuredemployeeswhoappliedforworkers’compensationincreasedwithtimelostfromworkfrom23%ofinjuredemployeeswhotooknotimeoffworkto73%ofinjuredemployeeswhotook5ormoredaysoffworkin2009–10.
Table 2: Work-related injuries incurred by employees: workers’ compensation status by time lost from work, 2009–10
Workers’ compensation status No time lost Up to 4 days 5 or more days Total
Number of injuries(a)
Appliedforworkers’compensation 58000 76400 110200 244600
Didnotapplyforworkers’compensation 193100 88400 41400 322900
Minorinjury/toomucheffort 134000 49200 5200* 188300
Notcovered/noteligible 22700 12400 17000 52100
Negativeimpactonemployment 6300* 5500* 6100* 17900
Otherreason 30200 21300 13100 64600
Total 251100 164800 151600 567500
Percentages
Appliedforworkers’compensation 23% 46% 73% 43%
Didnotapplyforworkers’compensation 77% 54% 27% 57%
Minorinjury/toomucheffort 53% 30% 3% 33%
Notcovered/noteligible 9% 8% 11% 9%
Negativeimpactonemployment 3% 3% 4% 3%
Otherreason 12% 13% 9% 11%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100%(a)numbersareroundedtonearest100andmaynotaddtototals*EstimatehasanRSEof25%to50%andshouldbeusedwithcaution
Table2alsoshowsthatthemainreasonwhyinjuredemployeesdidnotapplyforworkers’compensationwasthattheyconsideredtheinjurytobetoominororthatitrequiredtoomuchefforttoclaim.Aroundone-thirdofinjuredemployeescitedthisreason.Asexpected,theproportioncitingthisreasondecreasedwithincreasingtimelostfromwork.
Figure 2: Work-related injuries incurred by employees: time lost from work by reason did not apply for workers’ compensation status, 2009–10
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Applied for workers' compensation
Minor injury / too much effort
Not covered/ not eligible
Negative impact on employment
Other reason
Pro
porti
on o
f inj
ured
em
ploy
ees No time lost
Up to 4 days
5 or more days
WHO DID AND DIDN’T RECEIVE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION IN 2009–10...3
Ofconcernisthatnearlyoneinten(9%)injuredemployeesdidnotknowtheywerecoveredbyworkers’compensation.Thisequatesto52100injuredemployeeswhodidnotseekworkers’compensationfortheirinjury.One-thirdoftheirinjuriesinvolved5ormoredaysoffwork.
Table3showsasimilarpatternfromthe2005–06surveybutwithlowerproportionsofinjuredemployeeswhoappliedforworkers’compensationforeachperiodoftimelostandhigherproportionswhodidnotapplyforworkers’compensationduetotheirinjurybeingtoominororrequiringtoomuchefforttoclaim.
WhiletheestimatesforNegative impact on current or future employmenthavehighrelativestandarderrors(RSEs),comparisonoftheresultsfromthetwosurveysindicatesthattherehasbeenadropinthenumberofinjuredemployeesnotapplyingforworkers’compensationduetoconcernabouttheiremployment.
Therehasbeenaslightincreaseinthenumberofinjuredemployeesnotapplyingforworkers’compensationduetoOtherreason.Thiscategoryincludescaseswheretheemployeragreedtopaycosts.
Therehasbeenanotablereductioninthenumberofinjuriesthatrequired5ormoredaysoffwork,from165100in2005–06downto151600in2009–10.Thisequatestoafallintheproportionthatrequired5ormoredaysoffworkfrom29%in2005–06to27%in2009–10.
Table 3: Work-related injuries incurred by employees: workers’ compensation status by time lost from work, 2005–06
Worker’ compensation status No time lost Up to 4 days 5 or more days Total
Number of injuries (a)
Appliedforworkers’compensation 42300 63800 106400 212600
Didnotapplyforworkers’compensation 201600 97800 58700 358100
Minorinjury/toomucheffort 145800 61200 14400 221400
Notcovered/noteligible 19300 13900 15900 49100
Negativeimpactonemployment 11600 7200* 9700* 28500
Otherreason 24900 15500 18700 59100
Total 244000 161600 165100 570700
Percentages
Appliedforworkers’compensation 17% 39% 64% 37%
Didnotapplyforworkers’compensation 83% 61% 36% 63%
Minorinjury/toomucheffort 60% 38% 9% 39%
Notcovered/noteligible 8% 9% 10% 9%
Negativeimpactonemployment 5% 4% 6% 5%
Otherreason 10% 10% 11% 10%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100%(a)numbersareroundedtonearest100andmaynotaddtototals*EstimatehasanRSEof25%to50%andshouldbeusedwithcaution
4 ... SAFE WORK AUSTRALIA
Characteristics by sexMalesaccountedforjustoverhalf(54%)ofallwork-relatedinjuriesincurredbyemployeesbutweremuchmorelikelytoapplyforworkers’compensationfortheirinjurythanfemales.In2009–10,47%ofinjuredmaleemployeesappliedforworkers’compensationcomparedwithonly39%ofinjuredfemaleemployees.Table4showsthatin2005–06theproportionofinjuredemployeeswhoappliedforworkers’compensationwerelower(41%formales,31%forfemales)andthedisparitybetweenthesexeswaslarger.
Table4alsoshowsthatwhilethetotalnumberofinjuredemployeesdecreasedslightlybetweenthesurveys,thenumberofinjuredfemaleemployeesroseby19%whilethenumberofinjuredmaleemployeesfellby13%.Thefallinthenumberofmaleemployeeswhowereinjuredoccurredinthegroupthatdidnotapplyforworkers’compensationwhiletheincreaseinthenumberoffemaleemployeeswhowereinjuredoccurredmainlyinthegroupthatdidapplyforcompensation.Figure3graphsthenumbersshowninTable4.
Table 4: Work-related injuries incurred by employees: number by workers’ compensation status and sex
Male FemaleWorkers’ compensation status 2005–06 2009–10 2005–06 2009–10
Numberofinjuries(a)
Appliedforworkers’compensation 145400 144300 67200 100400
Receivedworkers’compensation 133500 128900 57200 85200
Didnotreceiveworkers’compensation 11900 15400 10000 15200
Didnotapplyforworkers’compensation 208500 165000 149600 157900
Total injured employees 353 900 309 200 216 800 258 300
PercentageAppliedforworkers’compensation 41% 47% 31% 39%
Receivedworkers’compensation 38% 42% 26% 33%
Didnotreceiveworkers’compensation 3% 5% 5% 6%
Didnotapplyforworkers’compensation 59% 53% 69% 61%
Total injured employees 100% 100% 100% 100%(a)numbersareroundedtonearest100andmaynotaddtototals
Figure 3: Employees with a work-related injury: Number by compensation status and sex, 2005–06 and 2009–10
180
240
300
360
ured
em
ploy
ees
('000
)
Total injured employeesApplied for workers' compensationReceived workers' compensation
60
120
180
Male Male Female Female
2005–06 2009–10 2005–06 2009–10
Num
ber o
f inj
ured
e
WHO DID AND DIDN’T RECEIVE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION IN 2009–10...5
Figure3showsthatthenumberofmalesemployeeswhoappliedforworkers’compensationin2009–10issimilartothatreportedin2005–06butthatthenumberofinjuriesincurredbythisgrouphasfallennoticeably.Forfemaleemployees,thenumberwhowereinjured,appliedforcompensationandreceivedcompensationallincreased.
Time lostFigure4showsthatmaleandfemaleemployeesincurredinjuriesthatrequiredsimilaramountsoftimeofffromwork.Whilefemaleemployeeshadaslightlylowerproportionthatinvolvednotimeoffwork,theyhadslightlyhigherproportionsthatinvolved5–10daysand11ormoredaysoffwork.
Figure 4: Employees with a work-related injury: Proportion who applied for workers’ compensation by time lost from work and sex, 2009–10
Thesedataindicatethatthemuchlowerproportionoffemaleemployeeswhoappliedforworkers’compensationisnotlinkedtoaloweramountoftimelostfromwork.Figure5showsthatin2009–10theproportionofinjurieswherecompensationwasappliedforincreasedwiththeamountoftimelostfromworkforbothmaleandfemaleemployees,thoughthepatternformaleandfemaleemployeeswasquitedifferent.Forinjuriesinvolvingnotimeoffwork26%ofmaleemployeesappliedforcompensationcomparedwith20%forfemaleemployees.TherewerelargergapsbetweenthesexesforthePart of day/shiftand1–4 daysoffworkcategories.However,oncefivedaysoftimelostwasreached,femaleemployeesshowedagreatertendencythanmaleemployeestoapplyforcompensation,76%offemaleemployeesappliedforcompensationcomparedwith73%formaleemployees.Interestinglyforinjuriesinvolving11ormoredaysoffwork,femaleemployeesonceagainappliedforcompensationlessoftenthanmaleemployees.
Figure5alsoshowsthatthe2005–06surveyshowedasimilarpattern,thoughlowerproportionsoffemaleemployeesappliedforcompensationforallperiodsoftimelostexceptinthecategoryofPart of day/shiftwherethesameproportionwasrecordedforbothmaleandfemaleemployees.Thegraphshowsthattheincreasedproportionforfemalesapplyingforcompensationmainlyoccurredforinjuriesresultingin5–10daysoffwork.In2005–06,54%offemaleemployeeswithaninjuryresultingin5–10daysoffworkappliedforcompensationwhilein2009–10,76%applied.Formaleemployees,increaseswererecordedforallperiodsoftimelost,thelargestbeingforinjuriesinvolvingPart of day/shiftwhichincreasedfrom33%to46%betweenthetwosurveys.
40%
60%
80%
jure
d em
ploy
ees
who
rk
ers'
com
pens
atio
n MaleFemale
0%
20%
40%
None Part of a day/shift 1–4 days 5–10 days 11 days or morePro
porti
on o
f inj
ured
eap
plie
d fo
r wor
kers
' c
Time lost from work due to injury
6 ... SAFE WORK AUSTRALIA
Figure 5: Employees with a work-related injury: Proportion who applied for workers’ compensation by time lost from work by sex, 2005–06 and 2009–10
Figure6showsthereasonswhyemployeesdidnotapplyforworkers’compensationfortheirwork-relatedinjury.Notethatthesedatadonotaddupto100%astheyarecalculatedasproportionsofallinjuredemployeeswhichincludesthosethatappliedforcompensation.Figure6showsthatfemaleemployeesaremorelikelytonotapplyduetotheirinjurybeingtoominororthatapplyingwastoomucheffort.In2009–10,30%ofinjuredmaleemployeesand36%ofinjuredfemaleemployeescitedthisreason.Forbothsexestheproportionwhocitedthisreasonhasfallenfromtheprevioussurveythoughtherehasbeenagreaterfallforfemaleemployees.
Figure 6: Employees with a work-related injury: Proportion by reason did not apply for compensation by sex, 2005–06 and 2009–10
Figure6alsoshowsthatin2009–10,8%ofinjuredmaleemployeesand11%ofinjuredfemaleemployeesdidnotthinktheywereeligibleforcompensation.Comparisonwiththe2005–06resultsindicatesthatformaleemployeestherehasbeenanimprovementinthisareawithalowerproportionofmaleemployeescitingthisreasonin2009–10comparedtotheprevioussurvey.However,forfemaleemployeesagreaterproportionnowthinktheyarenoteligibleforworkers’compensation.
Therewasalsoasubstantialdecreasebetweenthesurveysintheproportionoffemaleemployeessayingthattheydidnotapplyforworkers’compensationduetothenegativeimpactitmayhaveontheircurrentorfutureemployment.In2009–10only3%offemaleemployeescitedthisasareasonfornotapplyingforworkers’compensationcomparedwith7%in2005–06.Formaleemployeestheproportionwas4%inbothsurveys.
20%
30%
40%
50%
on o
f inj
ured
em
ploy
ees Minor injury/
too much effortNot covered / not eligible
Negative impact on employment
0%
10%
20%
Male Male Female Female
2005–06 2009–10 2005–06 2009–10
Pro
porti
on o
f inj Negative
impact on employmentOther reason
20%
40%
60%
80%
tion
of in
jure
d em
ploy
ees
o ap
plie
d fo
r wor
kers
' co
mpe
nsat
ion
None
Part of a day/ shift1–4 days
5–10 days
0%
20%
Male Male Female Female
2005–06 2009–10 2005–06 2009–10
Pro
porti
on o
f w
ho a
ppl
com
5–10 days11 days or more
WHO DID AND DIDN’T RECEIVE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION IN 2009–10...7
Characteristics by age group In2009–10theproportionofemployeeswhoappliedforworkers’compensationincreasedgraduallywithagefrom38%ofemployeesinthe15–24yearsagegroupto44%forthoseinthe45–54yearsagegroup.Theproportionjumpedto52%forthoseinthe55yearsandoveragegroup.However,asFigure7shows,thisoldestagegrouphadthehighestrejectionratewithonly41%actuallyreceivingworkers’compensation.
Figure 7: Work-related injuries incurred by employees: proportion by workers’ compensation status and age group
Thisisadifferentpatterntothe2005–06surveyresultswhichdidnotshowasclearapatternforapplicationswiththe25–34yearsagegrouprecordingthehighestproportion(37%)toreceiveworkers’compensation.Allagegroupshaveshownanincreaseintheproportionwhoappliedforcompensationandtheproportionwhoreceivedcompensationsincethelastsurveyexceptforthe25–34yearsagegroupwhichrecordednochangetotheproportionwhoreceivedcompensationdespiterecordinganincreaseintheproportionwhoappliedforit.Thesedataalsoshowthatthe55yearsandoveragegrouprecordedthelargestincreaseintheproportionswhoappliedforandreceivedworkers’compensation,thoughalsorecordedthelargestincreaseintheproportionwhohadtheirclaimrejected.
Female employeesFigure8showsthatforfemaleemployees,theproportionwhoappliedforworkers’compensationin2009–10increasedwithagefrom33%forthoseinthe15–24yearsagegroupto46%forthoseinthe55yearsandoveragegroup.Theproportionwhoactuallyreceivedcompensationdidnotshowthesameclearpatternthougholderemployeesstillrecordedahigherrateofreceiptofcompensationthanyoungeremployees.
Therehavebeennotableincreasesintheproportionswhoappliedforandreceivedcompensationacrossallagegroupsexceptthe55yearsandoveragegroupwhichrecordedafallintheproportionwhoreceivedworkers’compensationfrom39%downto35%.Thelargestincreaseintheproportionreceivingcompensationoccurredforfemaleemployeesinthe15–24yearsagegroupwhichrosefrom16%in2005–06to31%in2009–10.Despitethisincrease,the15–24yearsagegroupstillhasthesecondlowestproportionofemployeeswhoreceivedcompensationbehindthe25–34yearsagegroup.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
15–24 25–34 35–44 45–54 55 & over
Pro
porti
on o
f in
jure
d em
ploy
ees
Age group (years)
Applied 2009–10Received 2009–10
15–24 25–34 35–44 45–54 55 & overAge group (years)
Applied 2005–06Received 2005–06
8 ... SAFE WORK AUSTRALIA
Figure8alsoshowsthattheproportionofclaimsthatwererejectedincreasedwithagefrom2%ofclaimslodgedbyfemaleemployeesinthe15–24yearsagegroupto11%ofthoseinthe55yearsandoveragegroup.Whilethetypesofclaimsthatwerenotacceptedforcompensationcannotbereliablydeterminedbyage,thedataindicatesthatforallfemaleemployeesclaimsinvolvingmusculoskeletalconditions,crushinginjuriesandmentalconditionsweremorelikelytoberejectedthanotherclaims.
Figure 8: Work-related injuries incurred by female employees: proportion by workers’ compensation status and age group
Male employees Formaleemployeesthepatternbyageforapplyingforcompensationwasnotasclearasforfemaleemployees.Whiletheyoungestagegrouprecordedthelowestproportion(42%)andtheoldestagegrouprecordedthehighest(58%),theagegroupsinthemiddlerecordedsimilarproportions.Allagegroupsrecordednoticeableincreasesfromtheprevioussurveywiththegreatestincreaserecordedformaleemployeesinthe55yearsandoveragegroupwhichin2005–06recordedthelowestproportion(38%).
Figure9showsthatwhilethe2005–06surveyshowedadecreaseinthereceiptofworkers’compensationwithage,the2009–10surveyshowsnodiscerniblepatternbyagewithbetween40%and50%ofinjuredmaleemployeesindicatingthattheyreceivedcompensationfortheirwork-relatedinjury.
Figure 9: Work-related injuries incurred by male employees: proportion by workers’ compensation status and age group
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
15–24 25–34 35–44 45–54 55 & over
Pro
porti
on o
f in
jure
d em
ploy
ees
Age group (years)
Applied 2009–10Received 2009–10
15–24 25–34 35–44 45–54 55 & overAge group (years)
Applied 2005–06Received 2005–06
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
15–24 25–34 35–44 45–54 55 & over
Pro
porti
on o
f in
jure
d em
ploy
ees
Age group (years)
Applied 2009–10Received 2009–10
15–24 25–34 35–44 45–54 55 and overAge group (years)
Applied 2005–06Received 2005–06
WHO DID AND DIDN’T RECEIVE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION IN 2009–10...9
Thegreatestincreaseinthereceiptofworkers’compensationoccurredinthe55yearsandoveragegroupwith47%ofinjuredmaleemployeesin2009–10sayingtheyhadreceivedworkers’compensationcomparedwith29%in2005–06.
ComparisonofFigure8withFigure7indicatesthatin2009–10femaleemployeeswerearound10%lesslikelytoreceivecompensationthanmaleemployeesofthesameageexceptforemployeesinthe45–54yearsagegroupwherethepercentageofmaleandfemaleemployeeswhoreceivedcompensationinthe2009–10surveyweresimilar.
Time lostFigure10showsthatwheretheinjuryresultedinlessthan5daysoffwork,theproportionofinjuredemployeeswhoreceivedcompensationrangedfrom26%to31%whereasiftheinjuryresultedin5ormoredaysoffworkthentheproportionsrangedfrom59%to69%.
Figure 10: Work-related injuries incurred by employees: Proportion who received workers’ compensation by age group and time lost from work, 2009–10
Reason did not applyFigure11showsthattheproportionofinjuredemployeeswhodidnotapplyforworkers’compensationbecausetheyfelttheinjurywastoominororthatitwastooinconvenienttoapplydecreasedwithagefrom42%ofinjuredemployeesinthe15–24yearsagegroupto22%ofthoseinthe55yearsandoveragegroup.Theproportionwhodidnotapplyastheywereeithernotawareofworkers’compensationorthoughttheywerenoteligibleforitwassimilaracrosstheagegroupsrangingfrom8%to10%.Theotherreasonsemployeesdidnotapplyincludetheemployeragreeingtopaycostsorconcernaboutimpactoncurrentorfutureemployment.
Figure 11: Work-related injuries incurred by employees: Reason did not apply for workers’ compensation by age group, 2009–10
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Less than 5 days 5 or more days
Pro
porti
on o
f inj
ured
em
ploy
ees
who
rece
ived
wor
kers
' co
mpe
nsat
ion
Time lost from work
15–2425–3435–4445–5455 & over
0%
15%
30%
45%
15–24 25–34 35–44 45–54 55 & over
Pro
porti
on o
f inj
ured
em
ploy
ees
Age group (years)
Minor injury / too much effortNot eligible / not awareOther reason
10 ... SAFE WORK AUSTRALIA
Characteristics by employment conditionsEmployment statusOftheinjuredemployees,75%hadleaveentitlementsand22%didnot.Employeeswithoutleaveentitlementsarecommonlyreferredtoascasuals.Therewereafurther3%thatwereownermanagersofincorporatedenterprises(OMIE)butatthetimeoftheinjuryweredeemedemployeesduetothenatureoftheirworkingarrangement.OMIEshavebeenexcludedfromthefollowinganalysis.
Ofthegroupwithleaveentitlements,48%appliedforcompensationofwhich89%receivedit.Forthegroupwithoutleaveentitlements,32%appliedofwhich82%receivedit.Thismeansthatcasualsarelesslikelytoapplyforcompensationandtheyhaveahigherrejectionratefortheirclaims.
Figure12showsthatfemaleemployeeswithoutleaveentitlementsaretheleastlikelytoapplyforandreceiveworkers’compensationwithonly26%applyingforcompensationofwhichonly80%actuallyreceivedit.Maleemployeeswithoutleaveentitlementsrecordedthesecondlowestproportions.Thegroupmostlikelytoapplyforcompensationwasmaleemployeeswithleaveentitlementswith52%applyingforcompensationofwhich90%receivedit.
Figure 12: Work-related injuries incurred by employees: Proportion who applied and received workers’ compensation by employment status and sex, 2009–10
Figure13showshowtheproportionsthatreceivedworkers’compensationforinjuredemployeeswithandwithoutleaveentitlementschangewithtimelostfromwork.Thesedatashowthatastimelostfromworkincreasessodoesthegapbetweenthetwogroupsofemployeesintheproportionwhoreceivedcompensation,fromadifferenceofonly7%fornotimelosttonearly30%forinjuriesthatresultedin5ormoredaysoffwork.Forinjuriesinvolving5ormoredaysoffwork,72%ofemployeeswithleaveentitlementsreceivedcompensationcomparedwithjust43%foremployeeswithoutleaveentitlements.
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
geofinjuredemployees Appliedforworkers'compensation
Receivedworkers'compensation
0%
10%
20%
Employeeswithleaveentitlements
Employeeswithoutleaveentitlements
Employeeswithleaveentitlements
Employeeswithoutleaveentitlements
Male Male Female Female
Percentageofi
WHO DID AND DIDN’T RECEIVE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION IN 2009–10...11
Figure 13: Work-related injuries incurred by employees: Proportion who received workers’ compensation by employment status and time lost, 2009–10
Figure14showsthatagreaterproportionofemployeeswithoutleaveentitlementsthoughttheirinjurywastoominortoclaimcomparedwithemployeeswithleaveentitlements(37%to32%respectively).Thedataalsoshowthatemployeeswithoutleaveentitlementsarealotlesslikelytoknowabouttheirrightstocompensationwith15%believingthattheyarenotcoveredforcompensation,noteligibleforit,ornotawareofworkers’compensationcomparedwith6%foremployeeswithentitlements.
Figure 14: Work-related injuries incurred by employees: Proportion by employment status and reasons did not apply for workers’ compensation, 2009–10
Shiftwork and working hoursFigure15showstheimpactthatworkingundershiftorpart-timearrangementshasontheproportionofinjuredemployeeswhoappliedforworkers’compensation.Asfull-timenon-shiftworkersmakeupthelargestgroupofemployees,itisnotsurprisingthattheproportionsofmaleandfemaleemployeeswhoappliedforcompensationwerethesameasforallemployees(47%formales,39%forfemales).However,forfull-timeshiftworkerssimilarproportionsoffemaleandmaleemployeesappliedforcompensation(52%offemales,50%formales).
Therewasamuchbiggerdifferenceintheproportionsapplyingforcompensationforpart-timeemployeeswhenshiftworkisconsideredwith42%ofpart-timenon-
40%
60%
80%
ofinjuredem
ployeeswho
workers'com
pensation
Employeeswithleaveentitlements
Employeeswithoutleaveentitlements
0%
20%
0%
Notimelost Upto5days 5ormoredays
Percentageofinjure
receivedworkers
Timelostfromwork
20%
30%
40%
ofinjuredem
ployees Employeeswithleaveentitlements
Employeeswithoutleaveentitlements
0%
10%
20%
Minorinjury/toomucheffort Notcovered/noteligible Other
Percentageofinju
Reasondidnotapply
12 ... SAFE WORK AUSTRALIA
shiftworkersapplyingforcompensationcomparedwithjust24%forpart-timeshiftworkers.Thedataarenotshownseparatelyformalesandfemalesduetothesmallnumberofmalepart-timeemployees.
Figure 15: Employees with a work-related injury: Proportion who applied for workers’ compensation by shift work and full time/part time arrangements by sex, 2009–10
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
ofinjuredem
ployeeswho
rworkers'com
pensation
0%
10%
20%
30%
Fulltime Fulltime Parttime Parttime*
Nonshiftworker Shiftworker Nonshiftworker Shiftworker
Proportionofinjuredem
appliedforw
orkers'co
Male Female *estimateisfortotal maleandfemale
WHO DID AND DIDN’T RECEIVE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION IN 2009–10...13
Other characteristicsTable5providesinformationonworkers’compensationapplicationsbycountryofbirth.ThesedatashowthatemployeeswhowereborninAustraliaappliedforcompensationfor44%oftheirinjuriesandthoseborninmainEnglishspeakingcountriesotherthanAustraliarecordedasimilarproportion(45%).However,thoseborninothercountriesweremuchlesslikelytoapplyforcompensation(34%).
Allthreegroupsshowedsimilarproportionsfornotclaimingduetotheinjurybeingtoominortoclaim.ThebigdifferencebetweenthegroupsisthatthosebornoutsideofAustraliaweremorelikelytothinktheywerenotcoveredbyworkers’compensationornoteligibleforit.OfthoseborninmainEnglishspeakingcountries,11%didnotapplyforcompensationforthisreasoncomparedto8%ofAustralianborninjuredemployees.Forthoseborninothercountriestheproportionwas19%.
Table 5: Work-related injuries incurred by employees: proportion by reason did not apply for workers’ compensation status and where born, 2009–10
Where born
AustraliaMain English
speaking countries
Other than main English speaking
countriesAppliedforworkers’compensation 44% 45% 34%
Reasondidnotapply
Minorinjury/toomucheffort 34% 32% 30%
Notcovered/didnotthinkeligible 8% 11% 19%
Otherreasons 15% 12% 17%
Total 100% 100% 100%
Figure16showsthattheamountoftimeinthejobpriortoinjuryseemstohavesomeimpactonthelikelihoodofapplyingforcompensation.Only33%ofemployeeswhowereinthejobforlessthan6monthsappliedforcompensationcomparedwith44%forthosewhohadbeeninthejobfor5yearsorlonger.
Figure 16: Employees with a work-related injury: Proportion who applied for workers’ compensation by time in job prior to injury, 2009–10
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Up to 6 months Up to 1 year 1 to 4 years 5 years & over
Pro
porti
on o
f inj
ured
em
ploy
ees
Time in job at time of injury
14 ... SAFE WORK AUSTRALIA
Characteristics by occupation Figure17showsthatthelargestnumberofemployeesinjuredwereemployedasTechnicians&tradesworkers(20%),followedbyLabourers(16%),Professionals(15%)andCommunity&personalservicesworkers (14%).Thesefouroccupationgroupsalsohadthehighestnumberofemployeeswhoappliedforandreceivedworkers’compensation,thoughfewerProfessionalsappliedforandreceivedcompensationthanCommunity&personalservicesworkers.
Figure 17: Work-related injuries incurred by employees: Number of injured employees and number compensated by occupation, 2009–10
Figure18showsthatin2009–10Labourers werethegroupmostlikelytoapplyforandreceiveworkers’compensationwithjustoverhalf(52%)applyingforcompensationand47%receivingit.Managerswasthegroupleastlikelytoapplyforandreceivecompensationwithonly27%compensated.Clerical&administrativeworkersandSalesworkerswerethegroupswiththegreatestgapsbetweentheproportionswhoappliedforcompensationandthosethatreceivedcompensation.Thissuggeststhattheseemployeesaremorelikelytoputinclaimsforinjurieswhicharenotconsideredwork-related.Thedataarenotrobustenoughtoinvestigatefurther.
Figure 18: Work-related injuries incurred by employees: proportion receiving workers’ compensation by occupation, 2009–10
0
30
60
90
120
Technicians & trades
workers
Labourers Professionals Community & personal service workers
Machinery operators &
drivers
Managers Sales workers*
Clerical & administrative
workers
Num
ber o
f inj
ured
em
ploy
ees
('000
) Total injured employeesApplied for workers' compensationReceived workers' compensation
* estimate for those who received workers' compensation has an RSE between 25% and 50%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Labourers Machinery operators &
drivers
Sales workers*
Technicians & trades workers
Community & personal service workers
Professionals Clerical & administrative
workers
Managers
Pro
porti
on o
f inj
ured
em
ploy
ees Applied for workers' compensation
Received workers' compensation
* estimate for those who received workers' compensation has an RSE between 25% and 50%
WHO DID AND DIDN’T RECEIVE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION IN 2009–10...15
Figure19showsthereasonsthatemployeescitedfornotclaimingworkers’compensation.Itshouldbenotedthattheseproportionshouldbeaddedtotheproportionwhoappliedforworkers’compensationtoaddupto100%.Themainreasonfornotapplyingwasthattheemployeefelttheinjurywastoominororapplyingwastoomucheffort.Theproportionsrangedfrom26%forLabourersto41%forClerical&administrativeworkers.
Figure 19: Work-related injuries incurred by employees: reasons did not apply for workers’ compensation by occupation, 2009–10
WhilethedataforNot aware or not eligiblehashighRSEstheyindicateamuchlargerproportionofManagerscitedthisreasonthanotheroccupations.Thisisaconcernasmanagersofemployeesshouldbeawareofworkers’compensation.ItispossiblethatManagersfelttheirparticularinjurywasnoteligibleforcompensation,however,thetypesofinjuriesincurredbythisgroupdonotindicateaparticularlydifferentpatterntotheotheroccupationgroupsexceptforahigherlevelofStress or other mental condition.Managershadahigherproportionofinjuriesthatinvolvedeithernotimeoffworkorjustthedayofinjury,62%ofinjuriescomparedwith41%forLabourers(Figure20).
ManagersalsohadamuchhigherproportionofOther reasonfornotclaiming.Thiscategoryincludesconcernaboutcurrentorfutureemploymentandemployeragreedtopaycostsbothofwhichrecordedhigherestimatesthantheotheroccupationgroups.TheseseparatecategoriesarenotshownduetohighRSEsformanyoftheoccupationgroups.
Figure20showsthatformostoccupationsthereisalinkbetweentakinglessthanonedayoffworkandnotapplyingforworkers’compensationduetotheinjurybeingtoominor.Clerical&administrativeworkershadthehighestproportionwithlessthanonedayoffwork(61%)andthehighestproportionwhocitedMinor injury/ too much effort(41%)astheirreasonfornotapplying.
Labourershadthelowestproportionofinjurieswithlessthanonedayoffwork(41%)andthelowestproportionofinjuredemployeeswhocitedMinor injury/ too much effort(26%)astheirreasonfornotapplyingforworkers’compensation.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Clerical & administrative
workers
Professionals Sales workers*
Technicians & trades
workers
Community & personal service workers
Machinery operators &
drivers
Managers Labourers
Pro
prtio
n of
inju
red
empl
oyee
s
Reason did not claim workers' compensation
Minor injury / too much effortNot aware or not eligible*Other reason
* estimate has a RSE between 25%and 50% and should be used with caution.
16 ... SAFE WORK AUSTRALIA
Figure 20: Work-related injuries incurred by employees: time lost due to injury by occupation, 2009–10
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Managers Clerical & administrative
workers
Community & personal service workers
Sales workers
Professionals Technicians & trades workers
Machinery operators &
drivers
Labourers
Per
cent
age
of in
jure
d em
ploy
ees
Less than 1 day 1–4 days 5 or more days
WHO DID AND DIDN’T RECEIVE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION IN 2009–10...17
How the injury occurredFigure23showsthatLifting, pushing or pulling objectwasthecauseormechanismofthehighestnumberofinjuriesincurredbyemployeesfollowedbyHitting, being hit or cutandFall on same levelaccountingfor29%,24%and13%ofinjuriesrespectively.Thesethreemechanismsofinjuryalsohadthehighestnumberofemployeeswhoappliedforandreceivedworkers’compensation.
TheOther mechanismscategoryincludesContact with chemicalandWorking in unchanging positionwhichhad28000and20000employeesrespectivelycitingthesemechanismsasthecauseoftheirinjury.Forthesemechanisms65%and60%respectivelyinvolvednotimeoffworkandhencetheestimatesforthosewhoappliedforworkers’compensationweretoosmalltoshowinFigure23.Itisnotsurprisingthatthereasontheydidnotapplyforcompensationwasthattheyfelttheinjurywastoominortoclaim.
Figure 23: Work-related injuries incurred by employees: Number of injured employees and number compensated by how injury occurred, 2009–10
Figure24showsthatin2009–10,employeeswhoincurredaFall on same level werethemostlikelytoapplyforcompensationbutthosewhoincurredaFall from height werethemostlikelytoreceivecompensation. ThedataindicatethatallemployeeswhoappliedforcompensationduetoaFall from height receivedcompensationwhereasforallothermechanismsaproportionhadtheirclaimrejected.Figure 24: Work-related injuries incurred by employees: proportion applied and
received workers’ compensation by how injury occurred, 2009–10
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
Lifting,pushingor
pullingobject
Hitting,beinghitorcut
Fallonsamelevel
Repetitivemovement*
Exposuretomentalstress*
Fallfromheight*
Othermechanisms
Num
berofinjuredemployees('000)
Howinjuryoccurred
TotalinjuredemployeesAppliedforworkers'compensationReceivedworkers'compensation
*estimateforthosewhoappliedandreceivedworkers'compensationhasanRSEbetween25%and50%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Fallonsamelevel
Fallfromheight*
Lifting,pushingorpullingobject
Repetitivemovement*
Hitting,beinghitorcut
Exposuretomentalstress*
Othermechanisms
Proportionofinjuredemployees
Howinjuryoccurred
Appliedforworkers'compensationReceivedworkers'compensation
*estimateforthosewhoappliedandreceivedworkers'compensationhasanRSEbetween25%and50%
Exposure to mental stressrecordedthelowestproportionsofthosewhoappliedforandreceivedworkers’compensationofallthemechanismslisted.Thismechanismhasthehighestrejectionrateofallthemechanisms.
Figure25showsthattheproportionofinjuredemployeeswhoreceivedworkers’compensationhasshownsomenotableincreasesforafewmechanisms.ForHitting, being hit or cuttheproportionwhoreceivedworkers’compensationincreasedfrom31%to39%.
Repetitive movementandFall from height alsoshowednotableincreasesthoughthesedatahavehigherRSEsthanmostoftheothersandshouldbeusedwithcaution.
Figure 25: Work-related injuries incurred by employees: proportion received workers’ compensation by how injury occurred, 2009–10 and 2005–06
Datashowingreasonsinjuredemployeesdidnotapplyforcompensationisnotrobustenoughtoincludeinthissection.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Fallfromheight*
Fallonsamelevel
Lifting,pushingorpullingobject
Hitting,beinghitorcut
Repetitivemovement*
Exposuretomentalstress*
Othermechanisms
Proportionofinjuredemployees
Howinjuryoccurred
Received2009–10Received2005–06
*estimateforthosewhoappliedandreceivedworkers'compensationhasanRSEbetween25%and
WHO DID AND DIDN’T RECEIVE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION IN 2009–10...19
Type of injury Intermsofthetypesofinjuriesincurred,Figure26showsthatSprain/strain accountedforthehighestnumberofinjuriesfollowedbyChronic joint or muscle conditionandCut/open wound.Thesethreetypesofinjuryaccountedfor63%ofinjuriesand68%oftheinjuriesthatwerecompensated.Superficial injuryrecordedthelowestnumberofincidentsandthelowestnumberthatwerecompensatedpossiblyduetothefactthat62%involvednotimelostfromwork.
Figure 26: Work-related injuries incurred by employees: Number of injured employees and number compensated by nature of injury, 2009–10
Figure27showsthatemployeeswhoincurredaFractureweremorelikelytoapplyforandreceivecompensationcomparedwithothertypesofinjuries.Justoverhalf(52%)ofallFractureinjurieswerecompensatedin2009–10.Chronic joint or muscle condition injuriesandSprain/strain hadthenexthighestproportionsofemployeeswhoappliedforandreceivedcompensationfortheirinjury.
Figure 27: Work-related injuries incurred by employees: proportions applied for and received workers’ compensation by nature of injury, 2009–10
Crushing injury whichincludesinternalorgandamageandamputationsrecordedthehighestrejectionrateforworkers’compensationclaimsin2009–10.While42%appliedforcompensationjust26%receivedit.Thisisdifferenttothe2005–06surveywhichshowed42%receivedcompensationandhencethe2009–10resultmaybeduetosampledesignissues(Figure28).
0
30
60
90
120
150
180
Sprain/strain Chronicjointormusclecondition
Cut/openwound
Crushinginjury
Fracture Burns* Stressorothermentalcondition*
Superficialinjury*
OtherNum
berofinjuredemployees('000)
Typeofinjury
TotalinjuredemployeesAppliedforworkers'compensationReceivedworkers'compensation
*estimateforthosewhoappliedandreceivedworkers'compensationhasanRSEbetween25%and50%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Fracture Chronicjointormusclecondition
Sprain/strain Crushinginjury
Burns* Stressorothermentalcondition*
Cut/openwound
Superficialinjury*
Other
Proportionofinjuredemployees
Typeofinjury
Appliedforworkers'compensationReceivedworkers'compensation
*estimatehasaRSEbetween25%and50%
20 ... SAFE WORK AUSTRALIA
ForStress or other mental conditionthedatashowsasubstantialincreaseintheproportionwhoreceivedworkers’compensationin2009–10comparedwith2005–06.Therewereincreasesinboththeproportionwhoappliedforcompensationandtheproportionwhoreceivedit.
ModestincreaseswererecordedforChronic joint or muscle condition injuriesandSprain/strain whileforFracture,Cut/open woundandSuperficial injurythetwosurveysshowedsimilarresults.
Figure 28: Work-related injuries incurred by employees: proportion who received workers’ compensation by nature of injury, 2009–10 and 2005–06
Datashowingreasonsinjuredemployeesdidnotapplyforcompensationisnotrobustenoughtoincludeinthissection.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Fracture Chronicjointormusclecondition
Sprain/strain Cut/openwound
Crushinginjury
Stressorothermentalcondition*
Superficialinjury*
OtherProportionofinjuredemployeeswho
receivedworkers'com
pensation
Typeofinjury
Received2009–10Received2005–06
*estimateforthosewhoreceivedworkers'compensationhasanRSEbetween25%and50%
WHO DID AND DIDN’T RECEIVE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION IN 2009–10...21
Financial assistanceWhile38%ofinjuredemployeesreceivedworkers’compensation,therewereothertypesoffinancialassistancethatwereused.Figure29showsthemaincategoriesofassistance.ItshouldbenotedthataninjuredemployeecanaccessmorethanoneformofassistanceandhencethetotaloftheproportionsinFigure29canexceed100%.Thedatashowthatastimelostfromworkincreased,injuredemployeesweremorelikelytoaccessmorethanoneformofassistance.Theseresultsaresimilartothosefoundin2005–06.
Whileitisnotunexpectedthatover60%ofinjuredemployeeswithnotimeoffworkdidnotreceiveanyformoffinancialassistance,itisofconcernthat12%ofthosewithinjuriesthatrequired5ormoredaysoffworkdidnotreceiveanyfinancialassistance.
Otherthanworkers’compensation,themostaccessedformofassistancewasemployerprovidedsickleave.Sickleavewasusedbyaroundone-third(31%)ofinjuredemployeeswhotooklessthan5daysoffworkandnearly20%useditforinjuriesinvolvinglongerperiodsoftimeoffwork.
Employerpaymentsotherthansickleaveweremorefrequentlyusedwherenotimewaslostfromwork.Thesepaymentswerelikelytocovermedicalexpenses.Fortheinjuriesrequiringsometimeoffworkthesepaymentscouldincludeannualleave.
Medicareorothersocialsecuritypaymentswereaccessedequallyregardlessoftimelost,witharound7%ofinjuredemployeesaccessingthistypeoffinancialassistance.Comparisonwithdatafrom2005–06showsonlyaslightreductioninthenumberofinjuredemployeesaccessingthesetypesofpaymentsin2009–10.
Figure 29: Work-related injuries incurred by employees: Source of financial assistance by time lost from work, 2009–10
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
e of
inj
ured
em
ploy
ees
No time off
Up to 4 days
5 days or more
0%
10%
20%
30%
No financial assistance
Received workers'
compensation
Sick leave Employer other payment
Medicare & social security
Other
Per
cent
age
of i
nj
Source of financial assistance
WHO DID AND DIDN’T RECEIVE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION IN 2009–10...23
Glossary Applied for workers’ compensationTohaveformallyappliedforworkers’compensationbycompletinganapplicationforcompensation.
EmployeesPeoplewhoworkforapublicorprivateemployerandreceiveremunerationinwages,salary,aretainerfeefromtheiremployerwhileworkingonacommissionbasis,tips,piecerates,orpaymentinkind,orpeoplewhooperatetheirownincorporatedenterprisewithorwithouthiringemployees.
Employment statusEmployedpeoplewereclassifiedbywhethertheywereemployees,employers,ownaccountworkersorcontributingfamilyworkers.Thispublicationonlyincludesinjuriesincurredbyemployees.
Financial assistanceMonetaryassistancereceivedfromanypartytocovermedicalexpensesorincomeloss,incurredduetotheirwork-relatedinjuryorillness.
How injury occurredTheaction,exposureoreventthatwasthedirectcauseoftheinjury,orhowtheinjurywassustained.SeeAppendix1.
IndustryAgroupofbusinessesororganisationsthatperformsimilarsetsofactivitiesintermsoftheproductionofgoodsorservices.TheindustryoftheemployeehasbeenclassifiedinaccordancewiththeAustralian and New Zealand Standard Industrial Classification(ANZSIC),2006(ABSCat.No.1292.0).
Main English speaking countriesComprisestheUnitedKingdom,Ireland,Canada,SouthAfrica,theUnitedStatesofAmericaandNewZealand.
OccupationAcollectionofjobsthataresufficientlysimilarintheirmaintaskstobegroupedtogetherforthepurposesofclassification.TheoccupationoftheemployeehasbeenclassifiedinaccordancewiththeAustralian and New Zealand Standard Classification of Occupations(ANZSCO),FirstEdition,2006(ABSCat.No.1222.0).
Owner managers of incorporated enterprisesPeoplewhoworkintheirownincorporatedenterprise,thatis,abusinessentitywhichisregisteredasaseparatelegalentitytoitsmembersorowners(alsoknownasalimitedliabilitycompany).
Paid leave entitlementsTheentitlementofemployeestoeitherpaidholidayleaveand/orpaidsickleaveintheirjob.
24 ... SAFE WORK AUSTRALIA
Relative Standard Errors (RSEs) AllWRISdatapresentedinthisreportconformwiththeABSguidelinesregardingdataquality.Unlessotherwisemarked,alldatapresentedhaveRSEsbelow25%.DatawithRSEsabove50%havenotbeenpublished.ComprehensiveinformationaboutRSEscanbefoundintheWRISpublication.
Shift arrangementsAsystemofworkingwherebythedailyhoursofoperationattheplaceofemploymentaresplitintoatleasttwosetworkperiods(shifts),fordifferentgroupsofemployees.
Time lost from workIncludesallworkhoursspentonmedicalconsultation,hospitalisationandrestduetotheinjuryorillness.Thedaysorshiftsabsentdonothavetobeconsecutive.
Type of injuryReferstothemaininjurysustained.SeeAppendix1.
Work-related injury or illnessAnyinjuryorillnessordiseasewhichfirstoccurredinthelast12months,whereapersonsufferseitherphysicallyormentallyfromaconditionthathasarisenoutof,orinthecourseof,employment.Theinjuryorillnesswasconsideredtobeinscopeofthesurveyiftherespondentfirstbecameawareofitinthelast12months,eventhoughthecauseoftheinjuryorillnessmayhaveoccurredoutsidethe12monthreferenceperiod.Includedareinjuriesorillnessesthatoccurredwhilecommutingtoandfromwork,outsidetheplaceofworkbutwhileonworkduty,orduringworkbreaks.Informationwascollectedabouttherespondent’smostrecentwork-relatedinjuryorillnessiftherewasmorethanonework-relatedinjuryorillnessinthereferenceperiod.
Work-related Injuries Survey (WRIS)TheABSaspartofitsMulti-purposeHouseholdsurveycollecteddataonwork-relatedinjuriesfromJuly2009toJune2010.StatisticsfromthistopicwerepublishedinWork-related Injuries(CatNo.6324.0).Thepublicationpresentedinformationaboutpersonsaged15yearsoroverwhoworkedatsometimeinthelast12monthsandexperiencedtheirmostrecentwork-relatedinjuryorillnessinthatperiod.
Workers’ compensationIncludespaymentsbyaninsurerorotherliablepartyforcostsrelatedtoawork-relatedinjuryorillness;medicalpayments,incapacitypayments(incomemaintenanceandsalarytop-up),rehabilitationpayments,travelpaymentsandlegalpayments;andany‘settlement’or‘judgementofclaim’.
WHO DID AND DIDN’T RECEIVE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION IN 2009–10...25
Appendix 1: Injury ClassificationsWork-relatedinjuriesdataareclassifiedaccordingtotheTypeofOccurrenceClassificationsSystem(TOOCS)whichwasdevelopedbySafeWorkAustraliaforcodingworkers’compensationclaims.Thework-relatedinjuryorillnessclassificationusedinthissurveywasbasedontheTOOCSnatureofinjurycodes.Theclassificationofhowwork-relatedinjuryorillnessoccurredwasbasedontheTOOCSmechanismofinjurycodes.
Type of work-related Injury or illnessBurns Electricalburns,chemicalburns,coldburns,hotburns,frictionburns,combinationburnorburnsnotelsewhereclassified
Chronic joint or muscle condition ArthritisDisordersofthejointsDisordersofthespinalvertebraeandintervertebraldiscsDisordersofmuscle,tendonsandothersofttissues(e.g.OccupationalOveruseSyndromeandRepetitiveStrainInjuryifthisistheonlydescriptiongiven)Acquiredmusculoskeletaldeformities(e.g.flatfeet,malletfinger,hammertoe)
Crushing injury InternalinjuryofchestabdomenandpelvisInjurywithintactskinsurfaceandcrushinginjury(e.g.bruises,haematomas)Traumaticamputationincludinglossofeyeball
Cut/open wound Openwoundnotinvolvingtraumaticamputation(e.g.brokentooth,cuts,punctures,dogbites,tearingawayoffingernail,seriouswoundscontainingglass,metalorotherforeignbody)
Fracture Breakingofabone,cartilage,etc.
Sprain/strain SprainsandstrainsofjointsandadjacentmusclesAcutetraumasprainsandstrainsSprainsandstrainsofcartilageDislocations
Stress or other mental condition Stress,anxietyordepressionNervousbreakdownEffectsofwitnessingtraumaticeventsEffectsofinvolvementinahold-upVictimofharassmentHyperventilation(hysterical,psychogenic)HystericalsymptomsPhobiasObsessionalandcompulsivesymptomsShorttermshock
26 ... SAFE WORK AUSTRALIA
Superficial injury - covers minor injuries such as: NeedlestickpunctureAbrasions,grazes,frictionburnsorblistersScratchinjuryfromaforeignbodyineyeSplinterorotherforeignbodyinplacesotherthaneye
Other Responsesthatcouldnotbeincludedintooneofthecategoriesabovesuchasasthma,cancer,concussionorheartattack
How work-related injury or illness occurred Fall from a height AfallfromgroundleveltobelowgroundlevelLandingawkwardlyafterajumpfromaheightFallingoffananimalAfalldownstairsetc.
Fall on same level Allslips,trips,stumbles,stepsandjumps,evenifafalldoesnotfollowFallsofshortdistancessuchasoffacurborintoagutterFallsupstairsFallwithnofurtherdescription
Hitting, being hit or cut Hittingstationaryobjectsormovingobjects(e.g.cuttingoneselfwhileusingaknifeorothertool)Rubbingandchafingfromwearingfootwearorclothes,usingtoolsorhandlingobjectsBeinghitbyfallingobjectsBeingbittenbyananimalBeingbittenbyasnakeBeingtrappedbymovingmachineryorequipmentorbetweenstationaryandmovingobjectsExposuretomechanicalvibration(e.g.fromchainsaws)Beingassaultedbyapersonorpersons
Lifting, pushing, pulling, bending Muscularstresswhilelifting,carryingorputtingdownobjectsSingleormultipleeventsLiftingorcarryingresultinginstressfracturesRepetitivemovement,highmuscleloadingMuscularstresswhilehandlingobjectsSingleormultipleeventsPushingorpullingobjectsThrowingorpressingobjectsStressfracturesfromhandlingobjectsContinuallyshovellingClimbingladderscausingupperandlowerlimbinjuriesMuscularstresswithnoobjectsbeinghandledBendingdown,reaching,turningandtwistingmovementswherenoobjectsarebeinghandledStressfractureswithoutobjectsbeinghandled(e.g.fromrunning)Continuallytwistingneckwithnoobjectbeinghandled
WHO DID AND DIDN’T RECEIVE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION IN 2009–10...27
Repetitive movement OccupationaloveruseandrepetitivemovementoccurrencesProlongedstanding,workingincrampedorunchangingpositionsWorkingincrampedorunchangingpositionsProlongedstandingcausingvaricoseveins
Exposure to mental stress ExposuretoatraumaticeventExposuretoworkplaceoroccupationalviolence(e.g.victimofassaultorthreatenedassaultbyapersonorpersons,beingavictimoforwitnessinghold-upsetc.)Beingavictimofsexual,racial,orotherverbalharassmentWorkpressure(e.g.mentalstressarisingfromworkresponsibilities,conflictwithpeers,performancecounselling)AttemptedsuicideOthermentalstressfactors
Other inthispublicationincludes:Vehicle accident Anyaccidentorincidentonaprivateroad,farm,minesiteorfootpathinvolvingavehiclewherethemostseriousinjuryissustainedasaresultofthataccidentorinjuryAvehiclecatchingonfireaftertheaccidentAnyaccidentorincidentinafactory,mineorcarparkinvolvingafallfromamovingvehicle
Thoseresponsesthatcouldnotbeincludedintooneofthecategoriesabovesuchascontactwithhotfood/drink/beverages,exposuretoextremeweather,jumpingonobjects,struckbylighteningorsunburn
Long term exposure to sound Longtermexposuretoworkshoporfactorynoise,sharpsuddensounds,orlowfrequency(subsonicpressure)sounds
Contact with a chemical or substance SinglecontactwithchemicalorsubstanceImmediateallergicreactionstoasubstanceSplashwithacidCausticorcorrosivesubstancesintheeyesContactdermatitisSwallowingchemicalsubstancesExposuretosmokefromabushfire,chemicalfireetc.
Long term contact with chemicals or substances AcquiredallergicreactionsSlowpoisoning,aswithleadorotherheavymetalsLongterminhalationofdustorfibres,aswithasbestosfibresExposuretocigarettesmokeInsectandspiderbitesandstingsContactwithpoisonouspartsofplantormarinelife(e.g.blueringedoctopus,bluebottles,stonefishetc.)Otherandunspecifiedcontactwithchemicalorsubstance
WHO DID AND DIDN’T RECEIVE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION IN 2009–10...29
Technical NoteThework-relatedinjuriesstatisticswerecompiledfromdatacollectedintheMultipurposeHouseholdSurvey(MPHS)thatwasconductedthroughoutAustraliainthe2009–10financialyearasasupplementtotheABSmonthlyLabourForceSurvey(LFS).
ThepublicationLabour Force, Australia(cat.no.6202.0)containsinformationaboutsurveydesign,scope,coverageandpopulationbenchmarksrelevanttothemonthlyLFS,whichalsoappliestotheMPHS.Italsocontainsdefinitionsofdemographicandlabourforcecharacteristics,andinformationabouttelephoneinterviewingrelevanttoboththemonthlyLFSandMPHS.
TheconceptualframeworkusedinAustralia’sLFSalignscloselywiththestandardsandguidelinessetoutinResolutionsoftheInternationalConferenceofLabourStatisticians.DescriptionsoftheunderlyingconceptsandstructureofAustralia’slabourforcestatistics,andthesourcesandmethodsusedincompilingtheseestimates,arepresentedinLabour Statistics: Concepts, Sources and Methods(cat.no.6102.0.55.001).
COLLECTION METHODOLOGYABSinterviewersconductedpersonalinterviewsbyeithertelephoneoratselecteddwellingsduringthe2009–10financialyear.Eachmonthasampleofapproximately1300dwellingswereselectedforthemainMPHSsample,andapproximately1300to1400additionaldwellingswereselectedfortheextraMPHSsample.Inthesedwellings,aftertheLFShadbeenfullycompletedforeachpersoninthehousehold,ausualresidentaged15yearsandoverwasselectedatrandomandaskedtheadditionalMPHSquestionsinapersonalinterview.InformationforthissurveywascollectedusingComputerAssistedInterviewing(CAI),wherebyresponsesarerecordeddirectlyontoanelectronicquestionnaireinanotebookcomputer.
SCOPEThescopeoftheLFSisrestrictedtopeopleaged15yearsandoverandexcludesthefollowing:
• membersofthepermanentdefenceforces;• certaindiplomaticpersonnelofoverseasgovernments,customarily
excludedfromcensusandestimatedpopulationcounts;• overseasresidentsinAustralia;and• membersofnon-Australiandefenceforces(andtheirdependants).
Inadditionthe2009–10MPHSexcludedthefollowing:
• peoplelivinginveryremotepartsofAustralia;and• peoplelivinginnon-privatedwellingssuchashotels,university
residences,studentsatboardingschools,patientsinhospitals,residentsofhomes(e.g.retirementhomes,homesforpeoplewithdisabilities),andinmatesofprisons.
The2009–10MPHSwasconductedinbothurbanandruralareasinallstatesandterritories,butexcludedpeoplelivinginveryremotepartsofAustralia.Theexclusionofthesepeoplewillhaveonlyaminorimpactonanyaggregateestimatesthatareproducedforindividualstatesandterritories,excepttheNorthernTerritorywheresuchpeopleaccountforaround23%ofthepopulation.
30 ... SAFE WORK AUSTRALIA
SAMPLE SIZETheinitialtotalsamplefortheWork-RelatedInjuriestopicincludedintheMPHS2009–10consistedofapproximately38655privatedwellinghouseholds,whichisapproximatelydoublethestandardMPHSsample.Ofthe32760privatedwellinghouseholdsthatremainedinthesurveyaftersampleloss(e.g.householdswithLFSnon-response,noresidentsinscopefortheLFSorwork-relatedinjuriestopic,vacantorderelictdwellingsanddwellingsunderconstruction),approximately88%werefullyrespondingtotheMPHS.Thenumberofcompletedinterviewsobtainedfromtheseprivatedwellinghouseholds(aftertakingintoaccountthescope,coverageandsub-samplingexclusions)was28554(14205forthemainsampleand14349fortheextrasample).
ESTIMATION METHODSWeightingistheprocessofadjustingresultsfromasamplesurveytoinferresultsforthetotalinscopepopulation.Todothis,a‘weight’isallocatedtoeachsampleunit,which,fortheMPHS,caneitherbeapersonorahousehold.Theweightisavaluewhichindicateshowmanypopulationunitsarerepresentedbythesampleunit.Thefirststepincalculatingweightsforeachunitistoassignaninitialweight,whichistheinverseoftheprobabilityofbeingselectedinthesurvey.Theinitialweightsarethencalibratedtoalignwithindependentestimatesofthepopulationofinterest,referredtoas‘benchmarks’.Weightsarecalibratedagainstpopulationbenchmarkstoensurethatthesurveyestimatesconformtotheindependentlyestimateddistributionofthepopulationratherthanthedistributionwithinthesampleitself.
Thesurveywasbenchmarkedtotheestimatedcivilianpopulationaged15yearsandoverlivinginprivatedwellingsineachstateandterritory,excludingthescopeexclusionslistedabove.Theprocessofweightingensuresthatthesurveyestimatesconformtopersonbenchmarksbystate,partofstate,ageandsex,andtohouseholdbenchmarksbystate,partofstateandhouseholdcomposition.Thesebenchmarksareproducedfromestimatesoftheresidentpopulationderivedindependentlyofthesurvey.
RELIABILITY OF THE ESTIMATESEstimatesinthispublicationaresubjecttosamplingandnon-samplingerrors:
• Samplingerroristhedifferencebetweenthepublishedestimateandthevaluethatwouldhavebeenproducedifalldwellingshadbeenincludedinthesurvey.
• Non-samplingerrorsareinaccuraciesthatoccurbecauseofimperfectionsinreportingbyrespondentsandinterviewers,anderrorsmadeincodingandprocessingdata.Theseinaccuraciesmayoccurinanyenumeration,whetheritbeafullcountorasample.Everyeffortismadetoreducethenon-samplingerrortoaminimumbycarefuldesignofquestionnaires,intensivetrainingandsupervisionofinterviewers,andeffectiveprocessingprocedures.
COMPARABILITY WITH MONTHLY LFS STATISTICSDuetodifferencesinthescopeandsamplesizeoftheMPHSandthatoftheLFS,theestimationproceduremayleadtosomevariationsbetweenlabourforceestimatesfromthissurveyandthosefromtheLFS.
Inquiries Forfurtherinformationregardingthecontentsofthepublicationcontact:
TheData&AnalysisSection
Safe Work Australia (02)61219256