IION'S COMPENSATION BRIEF
RESENTED TO SELECT LABOUR COMMITTEE

THE WESTERN CANADIAN LUMBER WORKER

The B.C. Federation of Labour and the IWA Regional Council submitted
briefs March 6 to the Select Standing Committee on Labour requesting changes
to Bill 22, the government‘s new Workmen‘’s Compensation Act, prior to its
enactment by the House.

The following is the Regional Council’s submission which deals only with
Section 76, sub-section 2, the “Appeal Procedure,” and Section 13, “Light Duty,”
two sections of the Act which have caused the most problems to IWA members

in the past.

On behalf of our 36,000

members in British Columbia
we wish to thank you for this

opportunity of placing our

views before you. As an or-
ganization representing the
majority of workers in the
prime industry of the prov-
ince, we are greatly concern-
ed with the Compensation Act
that these people depend on
when injured.

We are primarily concerned
with the question of appeal
procedures.

_. May we say that we are
gratified that the government
has submitted Bill 22 to the
Standing Committee on La-
bour for the purpose of study-
ing the proposed legislation
and hearing submissions to
that end. Bill 69 respecting
the Workmen’s Compensation
Act had first reading in the
last session of the Legislature
as a result of a Commission of
Inquiry conducted by the
Honourable Mr. Justice
Charles W. Tysoe. In view of
this, we will take the liberty
of quoting some of the re-
marks by Mr. Justice Tysoe.

It is our understanding that
the B.C, Federation of Labour
will be making submissions to
your Committee; as a result
of this our union will only
make submissions dealing
with two aspects of the Work-
men’s Compensation Act —
Section 76, Sub-section 2, and
Section 13.

We wish to dea! first with

the appeal or review struc-
tures and procedures. At this
point we quote Justice Tysoe,
pages 355 and 356 of his re-
port.

“The internal review prac-
tices and procedures in Brit-
ish Columbia are to be found
described in Section 45 of this
report headed ‘Claims De-
partment, Claims Procedures,
Reviews’. A right in a work-
man or employer to appeal to
or to seek a review by a tri-
bunal which is within and
which forms part of the Board
organization, is subject to an
inherent weakness insofar as
protection against an improp-
er Board policy relating to
claims is concerned.

“Those who comprise the
reviewing body are employees
of the Board, hired and sub-
ject to discharge by the com-
missioners. They are part of
the whole general operation,
the pattern for which is set
by the attitudes of the com-
missioners. One would have
to be naive indeed to believe
that the members of the re-
reviewing body are complete-
ly free to exercise their own
unfettered judgment when
passing upon claims which
with equal justification could
as well be decided one way
as the other.

“If the policy of the com-
missioners is to be tight and
technical; the thinking and
approach of the reviewing
body will have to be the same

or its members are not likely
to hold their jobs for long.
After all, they must hecessar-

-ily operate within the general

policy of the commissioners.

“Tt would be improper for
them as servants of the Board
to do other than reflect the
policies of the commissioners.”’

We realize that some of the
recommendations of the Com-
missioner have already been
implemented by the Work-
men’s Compensation Board.
However, the recommenda-
tions by the Commissioner on
a reconstruction of the appeal
procedure within the Board
is not subject to legislation.
It is policy laid down by the
commissioners and could be
changed at any time. We re-
ject this loose manner of ap-
peal and would suggest that it
is not in keeping with the
Commissioner’s principles
outlined above.-

RE W.C.B. PROCEDURES

In the matter of the “Notice
of Appeal” form 288, it should
be noted that the wordage on
the existing form, “I am not
satisfied with the decision ren-
dered on this claim and I

hereby appeal to the Board of -

Review, please consider the
following reasons why I do
not agree with the decision,”
could easily be construed by
the claimant that it is a re-
quirement of the Workmen’s
Compensation Act that addi-
tional information or evidence
is required before their Board

of Review would consider this
notice of appeal. Subsequent-
ly, it is our feeling that many
claimants are not appealing
after this initial stage because
additional information is not
obtainable.

It should be noted that the
Tysoe Commission report,
page 317, Board of Review,
corroborates the above men-
tioned implication. Mr. Justice
Charles W. Tysoe had this to
say, “I pause here to say that
it was conceded by the Board
that this is misleading because
‘additional information’ is not
a prerequisite of the Board of
Review considering and re-
versing the decision of the
claims department. Mr. Mc-
Lennan, Chief Claims Officer
of the Board, said that in the
majority of the cases that go
to the Board of Review there
is no additional information
available. :

Why a-workman should
have to make a written re-
quest for an appeal form is
beyond me.” Page 318, Mr.
Eades had this to say, “The
purpose of the’ paragraph was
to discourage frivolous. and
vexatious appeals by work-
men.” This may be a laudable
objective but it is our conten-
tion that injured workmen
should be given every oppor-
tunity to initiate an effective
appeal procedure. The work-
man has the right to appear
in person or by representative
before the Board of Review,
but again the claimant is not
in any way informed of -this

by the Workmen’s Compensa-
tion Board.

We feel that the Act should
be written in such a manner
as to create appeal procedures
so that there is an uncompli-
cated, direct, concise manner

in which claimants can exer-
cise their right to appeal. It is
our firm contention that any
reasons for rejection should
be made known to the claim-
ant or his representative in
all instances, and that it
should be the responsibility of
the Workmen’s Compensation
Board to clearly and specifi-
cally indicate in any letter of
rejection the provisions of the
existing legislation and the
authoritative basis of the
Board’s decision.

It should be noted that at
the Commission of Inquiry on
the Workmen’s Compensation
Act by Mr. Justice Charles
W. Tysoe, not only should the
claimant be given the reasons
for rejection, he should also
have full access to all of the
evidence submitted by all in-
terested parties for his or his
representatives’ use, perusal
or guideline to determine nec-
essary appropriate future ac-
tion to be taken. We contend
that the British rules of jus-
tice are more than adequate
to substantiate the basic right
of obtaining the aforemention-
ed reasons for WCB rejection
of the claimant’s case and
further to this, the evidence
on which the WCB based its
decisions.

It should be noted on page
335 of the Tysoe Commission
Report, “I have given-some
thought to whether 2 .should
recommend that the giving of
adequate reasons be made
mandatory by statute. I shall
not so recommend. In the first
place, I think it has been made
perfectly plain to the Board
that it ought to give reasons
and it ought to give sufficient

See “BRIEF” Page 8

LLL I BRE,

Ties

Who says Calona’ Red
ds the favourite Red?

You do!

Year after year, you’ve kept Calona Red Dry and

eee

This advertisement is not published or displayed by the Liquor Control Board or by the Government of British Columbia

~ Calona Royal Red the best-selling wines in B.C.

Why settle for anything less?