Compensation victory

I T’S a rare thing for the government to back off destroying the rights of workers, or more specifically railway workers, without a fight. But ministers have listened and used common sense over political dogma by ditching plans to remove the right of workers injured through criminal acts in the course of duty from claiming compensation. Last month’s RMT News went to press before the government had announced that there was to be no change in eligibility for the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA) scheme. The Home Office wanted to “examine alternatives for compensating workers criminally injured in the course of duty”, possibly by placing the responsibility for paying compensation on to the employers. And ministers wanted to remove altogether from eligibility for compensation what the consultation paper described as “two anomalies whereby compensation can be paid for the trauma suffered as a result of suicide on the railway; and for the accidental injury resulting from taking exceptional risk in dealing with crime”. The response was swift from the trade unions and, for once, the employers and insurance industry were equally emphatic in their opposition to the proposals. Not entirely for the same reasons of course. Big business wasn’t concerned about the rights of workers to compensation, but was clearly alarmed by the suggestion that it should foot the bill for compensating those injured in the course of duty through criminal acts. There was, the Home Office says, strong opposition from railway industry employers’ representatives, including the Association of Train Operating Companies and London Underground, to the proposal to transfer responsibility for compensating those affected by railway suicides. Not quite an unholy alliance, and alas it’s unlikely that this government would have backed off if the unions alone had opposed the plans. But between the labour movement and the bosses we caught David Blunkett in a pretty effective pincer movement. In a low-key announcement, Paul Goggin, the home office minister, responded to a parliamentary question in June that train drivers were not to be removed from the scheme. And later that day Blunkett himself rose to announce that no changes would be made to the CICA which would exclude those injured in the course of duty. The official Home Office response to the consultation states: “There was strong opposition to the transfer of responsibility, on the grounds that railway suicides could lead to permanent psychological damage for those affected and that railway drivers unlike, for example, bus drivers, could not swerve or stop to avoid fatalities. A pre- existing right should not be removed.” It went on: “The level of compensation involved is low, suicides are more frequent on the railway than in any other sector, and it was argued that rather than transferring provision other workers, such as bus drivers, could be brought into the scheme. It was argued that there is sufficient public concern to the level of trauma that is involved to railway workers, that provision should remain, even if suicide was not a violent crime.” RMT was one of a number of unions also to argue that transferring to the employer responsibility for paying compensation to workers injured in the course of duty, such as station staff assaulted by drunken passengers, was unworkable. While it is important to encourage employers to do more to protect the safety of staff, making them pay the compensation is not the way to do it. Already they deny and delay when faced with a personal injury claim. Why should they be any more willing to pay when their employee has been injured through a criminal act? The labour movement can rightly be proud of its stand against the government’s attempts to deny workers injured in the course of duty the compensation they deserve. But let this not be the end of the fight. The CICA scheme continues to be woefully inadequate. The majority of awards for drivers who suffer trauma in witnessing a suicide are just £1,000, and the strict tariff system of payments means other injuries are rarely compensated appropriately. I’m sure I’m not the only person who has overheard the lads in the local laughing about how they want to become railway workers because “you get a grand every time you see someone chucking themselves under a train”. Compensation is reported in the media as some kind of pools win. But those who fight for compensation on behalf of the injured know the scale of the suffering behind every payment. RMT news – Employment rights Compensation victory Jennie Walsh of RMT solicitors Thompsons reports on an important victory in defence of workers’ compensation rights for criminal injury 14 This campaign would not be possible without the political fund