Client Story: Increase in Weekly Benefits

We recently disputed a WorkCover decision and were able to increase our client's weekly benefits.

Our client, Roger, injured his lower back at work while working as a removalist. As a result of this, he required several months off work.

When Roger's WorkCover claim was accepted, one of the first steps was for WorkCover to assess his "normal weekly earnings" and how much he would receive each week in lieu of his wages.

Unfortunately, Roger had only been working for the removal company for one week and was employed on a casual basis. This meant that he had not received a payslip from his employer, and he could not demonstrate any consistent earnings to WorkCover. His employment contract did not stipulate the number of hours that he would work each week.

Roger informed WorkCover that during his interview, he was told by the manager of the removalist company that he would be working approximately 30 hours per week at a rate of $35.00 per hour.

When WorkCover spoke with Roger's employer, they were told that Roger's hours were not guaranteed. The employer told WorkCover that it was not their company policy to give casual employees 30 hours a week, and that their manager would not have told Roger this.

Roger had worked 28 hours in his first week, however his employer said that this was just a one off and that his hours could be a little as 5 hours per week moving forward.

On this basis, WorkCover issued a decision that Roger would only be paid 5 hours per week in lost wages.

Roger was very upset by this. He had a young family, and needed to be paid his regular wages to support them and himself, whilst he was unable to work. Being paid for 5 hours per week was just not enough.

Rachel and I quickly decided that we needed to appeal this decision to the Workers' Compensation Regulator. We prepared submissions to the Regulator, which outlined the interview process and the conversations that took place between Roger and his manager. We included Roger's employment history (which showed that he had previously worked full-time), and that he had turned down another role with lesser hours. Roger also had an email that was sent to him by the manager, saying that he would "get 30 hours a week".

We also found an online post from the manager, advertising the role as a "casual role, 30 hours", and we included this with the submissions.

In response, the removalist company submitted that the email and social media post meant that Roger would get 30 hours in his first week only, not each week thereafter.

The Regulator found in favour of Roger. We were able to get his wages paid at 30 hours per week for the remainder of his time off work, and for his lost wages to be back paid. It was a great outcome and confirmed what Roger had been saying all along.

If you are having any difficulties getting your wages paid by WorkCover Queensland, please reach out to Rachel and I, and we can help you through your situation.