Act Now - The Report of the WCB Legislative Review Panel to the

More documents

Recommendations

Info

STAKEHOLDER QUESTIONNAIRE AND SUMMARY OF RESPONSESb) If no to (a), who should have the authority to set theYMIR?c) Do you think a formula to automatically change theYMIR when economic conditions change (such as achange in the Consumer Price Index) should be set in theActs?d) Do you think an injured worker’s actual wages should beused when calculating money compensation even if thatworker made $100,000 a year?e) Do you think there should be a minimum amount usedwhen calculating money compensation even if it is morethan what an injured worker made?f) Do you think that there should be different YMIRs fordifferent communities or groups of communities in theNWT and Nunavut?Minister = 24WCB Board of Directors = 43 Employees/employers 3 x Labour representatives Minister on recommendation from WCB BothYes = 74No = 22Yes = 63No = 29 Not to include overtimeYes = 46No = 44 Actual wages when hurtYes = 33No = 6025. There is a Harvesters Program that gives money as compensation to harvesters who are injured when hunting, trapping or fishing. Theprogram does not cover harvesters when they are getting ready to hunt, trap or fish. It does not cover them when they are doing thingsrelated to their harvesting activities after they get back from the harvest. The program was first started to cover subsistence harvesters.The territorial governments pay the WCB all the costs of the Harvesters' Program. The harvesters’ YMIR ($24,000) has not been changedsince 1994. It has been suggested this is too low.a) Should the WCB be responsible for administering theHarvesters’ Program?Yes = 43No = 41b) If no to (a), who should? Government department responsible for harvesters = 41 Labour representatives Hunters and Trappers Associationsc) Do you think the YMIR for the Harvesters’ Program istoo low?Yes = 54No = 20Appendix C Page C16 of C33WCB Legislative Review Panel Report December, 2001
STAKEHOLDER QUESTIONNAIRE AND SUMMARY OF RESPONSESd) If yes to (c), what should the maximum be? $24,000 to $30,000 = 9$30,000 to $40,000 = 19$40,000 to $50,000 = 15More than $50,000 = 3 Depends on the situation Since there is no employer, the program should match whatever theGovernments are prepared to pay for.e) Do you think the Harvesters’ YMIR should be set by theLegislative Assemblies and changed only by changingthe Acts?f) If no to (e), who should have the authority to set theYMIR?g) Do you think a formula to automatically change theHarvesters’ YMIR when economic conditions change(such as a change in the Consumer Price Index) should beset in the Acts?h) Do you think harvesters should be covered when they arepreparing to go out and finishing off harvesting workafter they get back?Yes = 30No = 41WCB Ministers = 6Ministers responsible harvester programs = 24WCB Board of Directors = 24 Input from Harvesters BothYes = 50No = 24Yes = 51No = 2426. A worker’s net wages are used for figuring out how much money to pay in compensation. Income tax, Employment Insurancepremiums and contributions to the Canada Pension Plan are taken off total wages to get to the net. It has been suggested that EmploymentInsurance premiums should not be taken off a worker’s wages when figuring out the amount of their compensation.a) What should a worker’s net wages be based on? Pleasecheck all those things that should be deducted whenfiguring out net wages.Income Tax = 79Employment insurance premiums = 43Canada Pension Plan contributions = 47 It depends on whether income tax is deducted from compensationpayments. Are compensation payments insurable earnings? My answerwould depend on how these questions are answered. UIC only if we can use the UIC system after injuryAppendix C Page C17 of C33WCB Legislative Review Panel Report December, 2001
Page 1 and 2:
Accountable…to stakeholdersCompen
Page 3 and 4:
Table Of Contents3.4.3 Employers’
Page 5 and 6:
Table Of Contents5.0 A FINAL WORD 1
Page 7 and 8:
The Legislative Review Directorate
Page 9 and 10:
3.0 Workers’Compensation Acts3.1
Page 11 and 12:
2.0 General ThemesDuring the course
Page 13 and 14:
The Panel has generally adopted the
Page 15 and 16:
The Panel did receive positive comm
Page 17 and 18:
wanted was to return to work and st
Page 19 and 20:
2. Are there workers in specific in
Page 21 and 22:
Panel feels legislation should be p
Page 23 and 24:
3.2 WCB Authority and Accountabilit
Page 25 and 26:
WCB Board of Directors may chose to
Page 27 and 28:
3.2.6 Regular Reviews of the Worker
Page 29 and 30:
Recommendations: 3.2.8 Liability Pr
Page 31 and 32:
Legislation in 2 other jurisdiction
Page 33 and 34:
The legislation in other jurisdicti
Page 35 and 36:
ones held accountable for a decisio
Page 37 and 38:
members may be reappointed to the W
Page 39 and 40:
Some suggested that having a compen
Page 41 and 42:
Recommendations: 3.4.2 Workers’ A
Page 43 and 44:
The WCB Board of Directors made the
Page 45 and 46:
esolutions committees, under the au
Page 47 and 48:
The Appeals Tribunal must give the
Page 49 and 50:
The Panel considered the establishm
Page 51 and 52:
Recommendations: 3.5.5 Time Limits
Page 53 and 54:
are not familiar with some of the u
Page 55 and 56:
The Panel was interested in the Ont
Page 57 and 58:
Workers’ compensation payments ar
Page 59 and 60:
3.6.3 Year’s Maximum Insurable Re
Page 61 and 62:
The Acts are very specific in some
Page 63 and 64:
3.6.5 Indexing Compensation by Comm
Page 65 and 66:
2. The legislation should be change
Page 67 and 68:
The Panel considered whether the in
Page 69 and 70:
The Panel heard from some stakehold
Page 71 and 72:
The Acts require any employer, whet
Page 73 and 74:
Respondents to the Stakeholder Ques
Page 75 and 76:
The Panel agrees. We see prior cons
Page 77 and 78:
3.9.3 Authority to Make Investments
Page 79 and 80:
Respondents to the Stakeholder Ques
Page 81 and 82:
The duty to accommodate is not an o
Page 83 and 84:
payments such as income tax or payr
Page 85 and 86:
3.13 Environmental ChangeThe Acts h
Page 87 and 88:
construction permits is a matter of
Page 89 and 90:
date sections, reordering the “pa
Page 91 and 92:
The Panel has recommended changes t
Page 93 and 94:
the WCB when it is contemplating ch
Page 95 and 96:
4. The legislation should be change
Page 97 and 98:
The Panel was asked to consider rec
Page 99 and 100:
No other jurisdictions regulate wor
Page 101 and 102:
4.2.5 Safety InspectionsSome stakeh
Page 103 and 104:
4.4 Employer Responsibilities4.4.1
Page 105 and 106:
The Panel feels that the instrument
Page 107 and 108: Recommendation: 4.6.2 Consistency w
Page 109 and 110: others have experience as employers
Page 111 and 112: While the Panel heard positive comm
Page 113 and 114: 5. Operational versus Legislative I
Page 115 and 116: 3. The legislation should be amende
Page 117 and 118: 3. It is suggested that the first r
Page 119 and 120: 2. The legislation should be change
Page 121 and 122: Recommendations: 3.5.5 Time Limits
Page 125 and 126: Recommendation: 3.7.3 Rewarding Saf
Page 127 and 128: Recommendation: 3.12.4 Employer Rec
Page 131 and 132: Regulations (see also Recommendatio
Page 133 and 134: 5.0 A Final WordThe Panel has recom
Page 135 and 136: Glossary and DefinitionsAccident Fu
Page 137 and 138: Glossary and DefinitionsNet annualr
Page 139 and 140: WCB Legislative Review Panel Terms
Page 141 and 142: WCB LEGISLATIVE REVIEW PANELTERMS O
Page 143 and 144: STAKEHOLDER QUESTIONNAIRE AND SUMMA
Page 157: STAKEHOLDER QUESTIONNAIRE AND SUMMA
Page 177 and 178: SUMMARY OF ISSUES FROM PUBLIC HEARI
Page 183 and 184: Key:SUMMARY OF ISSUES FROM PUBLIC H
Page 193 and 194: Key:SUMMARY OF ISSUES FROM PUBLIC H
Page 199 and 200: smoke.Key:SUMMARY OF ISSUES FROM PU
Page 203 and 204: SUMMARY OF FORMAL PRESENTATIONS AND
Page 205: SUMMARY OF FORMAL PRESENTATIONS AND
show all

Act Now - The Report of the WCB Legislative Review Panel to the

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?