Slightest cut may prevent work

Press, 5 October 1977, Page 1

Slightest cut may prevent work

Strict hygiene requirements in freezing works were cited by works doctors in Canterbury yesterday as a reason for freezing workers often having to be sent home when it appeared that they needed only first aid. The doctors, who declined to be named, were asked to comment on accusations against works doctors made in the Nordmeyer report on accident compensation in the freezing industry. “The first-aiders do quite a reasonable job but the hygiene regulations are so strict that with the slightest . cut a worker might have to come off the chain,” said one of the doctors.

He said that another problem was with workers who complained of pain low in the back. “It is not like a cut finger — you cannot see the injury. You have to take the patient’s word for it, and if it is authentic he is entitled to compensation for it.” In cases where the injury might have occurred over a time rather than in an accident, the patient would be

referred to an orthopaedic surgeon, who was better able to assess whether the injury was compensable, he said.

A point made by the other doctor was that often no alternative duties were available to the freezing worker who suffered a minor cut to his hand — his hand must be kept dry if the injury was infectious. The New Zealand Meat Workers’ Union would oppose any changes in legislation relating to freezing industry accident compensation claims, said the union’s secretary (Mr F. E. McNulty). Mr McNulty said that the union definitely opposed any changes to payment of full compensation for the first week. He would not comment further. The executive director of the Freezing Companies’ Association (Mr P. D. Blomfield) said that the Nordmeyer report indicated the necessity for a review of the Accident Compensation Act.

For some time the industry had sought a reduction in its liability of 100 per cent of injured workers’

wages for the first seven working days missed, he said. Mr Blomfield said he welcomed a joint unionindustry inquiry to find ways to prevent abuse of the scheme. Sir Owen Woodhouse, who was chairman of the 1967 Royal Commission which led to the Accident Compensation Act. said that full pay for the first week, which was 100 per cent compensation or better. amounted to a complete negation of the principles contained in the 1967 report.

Sir Owen said that in the 10 years since the Roval Commission report was presented, he had kept silent about this and several other critical changes made to the original proposals. "I make mv present comments because it should be realised that the report itself is in no way responsible in this and certain other aspects of the accident compensation scheme that are now becoming subject to understandable public anxiety,” he said.

(Nordmeyer report, Page 3)