work-related injuries in australia: who did and didn’t ... · who did and didn’t receive...

WORK-RELATED INJURIES IN AUSTRALIA: Who did and didn’t receive workers’ compensation in 2009–10

November 2011

Safe Work Australia

Work-related injuries in Australia: Who did and didn’t receive workers’

compensation in 2009–10

November 2011

Creative CommonsISBN 978-0-642-33303-2[PDF]

978-0-642-33304-9[RTF]

WiththeexceptionoftheSafeWorkAustralialogo,thisreportislicensedbySafeWorkAustraliaunderaCreativeCommons3.0AustraliaLicence.Toviewacopyofthislicence,visithttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/deed.en

Inessence,youarefreetocopy,communicateandadaptthework,aslongasyouattributetheworktoSafeWorkAustraliaandabidebytheotherlicensingterms.ThereportshouldbeattributedasWork-related injuries in Australia: Who did and didn’t receive workers’ compensation in 2009–10.

Enquiriesregardingthelicenceandanyuseofthereportarewelcomeat:

CopyrightOfficerCommunications,ITandKnowledgeManagementSafeWorkAustraliaGPOBox641CanberraACT2601Email:[email protected]

DisclaimerTheinformationprovidedinthisdocumentcanonlyassistyouinthemostgeneralway.ThisdocumentdoesnotreplaceanystatutoryrequirementsunderanyrelevantStateandTerritorylegislation.SafeWorkAustraliaacceptsnoliabilityarisingfromtheuseoforrelianceonthematerialcontainedonthisdocument,whichisprovidedonthebasisthatSafeWorkAustraliaisnottherebyengagedinrenderingprofessionaladvice.Beforerelyingonthematerial,usersshouldcarefullymaketheirownassessmentastoitsaccuracy,currency,completenessandrelevancefortheirpurposes,andshouldobtainanyappropriateprofessionaladvicerelevanttotheirparticularcircumstances.Totheextentthatthematerialinthisdocumentincludesviewsorrecommendationsofthirdparties,suchviewsorrecommendationsdonotnecessarilyreflecttheviewsofSafeWorkAustralianordotheyindicateacommitmenttoaparticularcourseofaction.

[email protected]

[email protected]

iii

ForewordSafeWorkAustraliausesworkers’compensationclaimsdataasitsprimarysourceofinformationtomeasureworkhealthandsafetyperformanceinAustralia.ThesedataarecollatedastheNationalDataSetforCompensation-basedStatistics(NDS).WhiletheNDShasmanystrengths,itdoesnotprovideinformationongroupsnotwell-coveredbyworkers’compensationschemes,suchastheself-employed.ThereforewhiletheNDScanprovidegoodinformationonthetypesandcircumstancesofwork-relatedinjury,itcannotprovideatotalmeasureofthenumberofworkersinjuredeachyear.

Toaddressthissituation,SafeWorkAustraliapartiallyfundedtheAustralianBureauofStatistics’Work-RelatedInjuries,Australia,2009–10(WRIS)survey,resultsfromwhichwerepublishedinDecember2010.Thissurveyisanupdateofthe2005–06surveypublishedinDecember2006.TheWRISwerecompiledfromdatacollectedintheMultipurposeHouseholdSurvey(MPHS)thatwasconductedthroughoutAustraliainthe2009–10financialyearasasupplementtotheABSmonthlyLabourForceSurvey(LFS).

TheWRIScollectedinformationoverthe2009–10periodfromasampleofpeopleaged15yearsandoverwhoworkedatsometimeinthelast12monthsandexperiencedawork-relatedinjuryorillnessinthatperiod.Arangeofdetailsabouttheirmostrecentwork-relatedinjuryorillnesswerecollected.Asthedataarefromasample,theresultsareadjustedorweightedtoinferresultsforthetotalworkingpopulation.Carehasbeentakentoonlyshowresultsthatareconsideredrobustenoughforanalysis.ThisisinaccordancewithABSprinciples.

Thedemographicsoftheworkersuchasage,sexandemploymentstatus(employee,employerorownaccountworker)aretakenfromresponsestotheLFS.However,duetodifferencesinthescopeandsamplesizeoftheMPHSandthatoftheLFS,theweightingprocessmayleadtosomevariationsbetweenlabourforceestimatesfromtheWRISandthosefromtheLFS.

Thisreportspecificallyfocussesonemployees.Thisgroupofworkersarethosewhoareentitledtoworkers’compensation.Thereportwillinvestigatethecharacteristicsoftheemployeeswhoappliedforandreceivedworkers’compensationfortheirwork-relatedinjury.AninjuryiscountedintheWRISsurveyiftheworkerfeltitaroseoutoftheiremployment.Thereisnorequirementfortheworkertoseekmedicalattentionfortheirinjuryasisthecasewithworkers’compensation.

v

ContentsSummary of findings vii

Compensated work-related injuries 1

Characteristics by sex 4

Characteristics by age group 7

Characteristics by employment status 10

Other characteristics 13

Characteristics by occupation 14

How the injury occurred 17

Type of injury 19

Financial assistance 21

Glossary 23

Appendix 1: Injury Classifications 25

Technical note 29

VII

Summary of findingsIn2009–10,567500employeeswereinjuredwhileworkingbutonly38%receivedworkers’compensation.Thisisaslightdecreaseonthenumberofemployeesinjuredin2005–06(570700)andanotableincreaseonthe33%whowerecompensated.Whilethisisencouragingtherehasbeenanincreaseinthenumberofemployeeswhoappliedforworkers’compensationbutdidnotreceiveitfrom3.8%ofinjuredemployeesin2005–06to5.4%in2009–10.ThesedatawerederivedfrominformationcollectedintheAustralianBureauofStatistics’Work-related Injuries Survey.

Theamountoftimetakenoffworkfollowinganinjuryimpactedonwhethertheemployeeappliedforworkers’compensation.Thedatashowedthatonly23%ofinjuredemployeeswhotooknotimeoffworkappliedforworkers’compensationcomparedwith73%ofinjuredemployeeswhotook5ormoredaysoffwork.

Maleemployeesweremorelikelythanfemaleemployeestoreceiveworkers’compensationthoughthegapbetweenthesexeshasclosedslightlyinthefouryearssincethatlastsurvey.In2005–06,38%ofmaleemployeesreceivedcompensationwhichroseto42%in2009–10whileforfemaleemployeestheproportionincreasedfrom26%to33%.

Agreaterproportionoffemaleemployeescomparedwithmaleemployeesfelttheirinjurywastoominortoclaim(32%and28%respectively).Agreaterproportionoffemaleemployeesalsothoughttheywerenotcoveredforworkers’compensationornoteligibleforit,10%comparedwith8%formaleemployees.

Ageplayedonlyasmallroleinwhetheranemployeereceivedworkers’compensationornot.In2009–10,36%ofinjuredemployeesinthe15–24yearsagegroupreceivedcompensationcomparedwith41%inthe55yearsandoveragegroup.Similarpatternsexistedforbothmaleandfemaleemployees.

Employeeswithleaveentitlementsweremorelikelythancasuals(employeeswithoutleaveentitlements)toreceivecompensation.In2009–10,48%ofemployeeswithleaveentitlementsreceivedcompensationcomparedwith32%ofemployeeswithoutleaveentitlements.Employeeswithoutleaveentitlementsweremorelikelytothinktheirinjurywastoominortoclaimandmorelikelytothinktheywerenotcoveredbyworkers’compensation.

Part-timeemployeeswerelesslikelytoapplyforcompensationcomparedwithfull-timeemployees.Part-timeshiftworkersweretheleastlikelytoapplyforcompensationofallemployeegroups.

EmployeesbornincountriesthatdidnothaveEnglishasitsmainlanguagecountrieswerelesslikelytoapplyforworkers’compensationcompared(34%)withthoseborninAustralia(44%)andthoseborninmainEnglishspeakingcountries(45%).

LabourersandMachineryoperators&driversweretheoccupationgroupsmostlikelytoreceiveworkers’compensation,whereasManagersandClerical&administrativeworkersweretheleastlikelytoreceiveit.

In2009–10injuriesincurredinfallswerethemostlikelytobecompensatedwhileinjuriesfromExposure to mental stressweretheleastlikelytobecompensated.

Sickleavewasthemostcommontypeoffinancialassistanceotherthanworkers’compensationaccessedbyinjuredemployees.Forinjuriesinvolvinglessthan5daysofwork,31%usedsickleave.Forinjuriesinvolving5ormoredays,20%of

injuredemployeesusedsickleave.Medicareorothersocialsecuritypaymentswereaccessedby7%ofallinjuredemployees.Thedatashowthatnofinancialassistancewasreceivedby12%ofemployeeswhoincurredinjuriesthatinvolved5ormoredaysoffwork.

WHO DID AND DIDN’T RECEIVE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION IN 2009–10...1

Compensated work-related injuriesOfthe12millionpeopleaged15yearsandoverwhohadworkedatsometimeinthetwelvemonthspriortointerviewin2009–10,638400experiencedawork-relatedinjuryorillness-equatingto5.3%ofworkers.Thisproportionisadecreasefromthe6.4%ofworkerswhoexperiencedawork-relatedinjuryorillnessin2005–06.Thesefiguresincludeinjuriesthatoccurredwhileworkingorwhiletravellingtoorfromwork.

Onlyemployeesarecoveredbyworkers’compensation.In2009–10,92%ofworkerswereemployees.Thisreportrelatesonlytothisgroup.Inaddition,workers’compensationfortraveltoorfromworkisonlyavailableinsomejurisdictionsandhenceinjuriesoccurringwhilecommutinghavebeenexcludedfromthisreport.

Table1showsthatthenumberofemployeeswhowereinjuredwhileworkingfellfrom570700in2005–06to567500in2009–10.Againstabackdropofincreasingemployment,thismeanstheincidenceratehasfallenfrom65injuriesper1000employeesin2005–06to58in2009–10.

Table 1: Employees with a work-related injury: number by workers’ compensation status, 2005–06 and 2009–10

Number of injuries(a) Percentage

Workers’ compensation status 2005–06 2009–10 2005–06 2009–10

Appliedforworkers’compensation 212600 244600 37% 43%

Receivedworkers’compensation 190700 214100 33% 38%

Didnotreceiveworkers’compensation 21900 30600 4% 5%

Didnotapplyforworkers’compensation 358100 322900 63% 57%

Total injured employees 570 700 567 500 100% 100%

(a)numbersareroundedtonearest100andmaynotaddtototals

In2009–10,43%ofinjuredemployeesappliedforworkers’compensation,animprovementonthe37%recordedin2005–06.However,thenumberofemployeeswhoappliedforworkers’compensationbutdidnotreceiveit(claimwasrejected)hasalsogrownfrom3.8%ofinjuredemployeesin2005–06to5.4%in2009–10.ThesedataareshowngraphicallyinFigure1.

Figure 1: Employees with a work-related injury: Number by compensation status, 2005–06 and 2009–10

100

200

300

400

500

600

2005–06 2009–10

Num

ber o

f in

jure

d em

ploy

ees

('000

)

Total injured employees Applied for workers' compensation Received workers' compensation

2 ... SAFE WORK AUSTRALIA

Figure2andTable2showthattheproportionofinjuredemployeeswhoappliedforworkers’compensationincreasedwithtimelostfromworkfrom23%ofinjuredemployeeswhotooknotimeoffworkto73%ofinjuredemployeeswhotook5ormoredaysoffworkin2009–10.

Table 2: Work-related injuries incurred by employees: workers’ compensation status by time lost from work, 2009–10

Workers’ compensation status No time lost Up to 4 days 5 or more days Total

Number of injuries(a)

Appliedforworkers’compensation 58000 76400 110200 244600

Didnotapplyforworkers’compensation 193100 88400 41400 322900

Minorinjury/toomucheffort 134000 49200 5200* 188300

Notcovered/noteligible 22700 12400 17000 52100

Negativeimpactonemployment 6300* 5500* 6100* 17900

Otherreason 30200 21300 13100 64600

Total 251100 164800 151600 567500

Percentages

Appliedforworkers’compensation 23% 46% 73% 43%

Didnotapplyforworkers’compensation 77% 54% 27% 57%

Minorinjury/toomucheffort 53% 30% 3% 33%

Notcovered/noteligible 9% 8% 11% 9%

Negativeimpactonemployment 3% 3% 4% 3%

Otherreason 12% 13% 9% 11%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100%(a)numbersareroundedtonearest100andmaynotaddtototals*EstimatehasanRSEof25%to50%andshouldbeusedwithcaution

Table2alsoshowsthatthemainreasonwhyinjuredemployeesdidnotapplyforworkers’compensationwasthattheyconsideredtheinjurytobetoominororthatitrequiredtoomuchefforttoclaim.Aroundone-thirdofinjuredemployeescitedthisreason.Asexpected,theproportioncitingthisreasondecreasedwithincreasingtimelostfromwork.

Figure 2: Work-related injuries incurred by employees: time lost from work by reason did not apply for workers’ compensation status, 2009–10

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Applied for workers' compensation

Minor injury / too much effort

Not covered/ not eligible

Negative impact on employment

Other reason

Pro

porti

on o

f inj

ured

em

ploy

ees No time lost

Up to 4 days

5 or more days


Ofconcernisthatnearlyoneinten(9%)injuredemployeesdidnotknowtheywerecoveredbyworkers’compensation.Thisequatesto52100injuredemployeeswhodidnotseekworkers’compensationfortheirinjury.One-thirdoftheirinjuriesinvolved5ormoredaysoffwork.

Table3showsasimilarpatternfromthe2005–06surveybutwithlowerproportionsofinjuredemployeeswhoappliedforworkers’compensationforeachperiodoftimelostandhigherproportionswhodidnotapplyforworkers’compensationduetotheirinjurybeingtoominororrequiringtoomuchefforttoclaim.

WhiletheestimatesforNegative impact on current or future employmenthavehighrelativestandarderrors(RSEs),comparisonoftheresultsfromthetwosurveysindicatesthattherehasbeenadropinthenumberofinjuredemployeesnotapplyingforworkers’compensationduetoconcernabouttheiremployment.

Therehasbeenaslightincreaseinthenumberofinjuredemployeesnotapplyingforworkers’compensationduetoOtherreason.Thiscategoryincludescaseswheretheemployeragreedtopaycosts.

Therehasbeenanotablereductioninthenumberofinjuriesthatrequired5ormoredaysoffwork,from165100in2005–06downto151600in2009–10.Thisequatestoafallintheproportionthatrequired5ormoredaysoffworkfrom29%in2005–06to27%in2009–10.

Table 3: Work-related injuries incurred by employees: workers’ compensation status by time lost from work, 2005–06

Worker’ compensation status No time lost Up to 4 days 5 or more days Total

Number of injuries (a)



Minorinjury/toomucheffort 145800 61200 14400 221400

Notcovered/noteligible 19300 13900 15900 49100

Negativeimpactonemployment 11600 7200* 9700* 28500

Otherreason 24900 15500 18700 59100

Total 244000 161600 165100 570700

Percentages

Appliedforworkers’compensation 17% 39% 64% 37%


Minorinjury/toomucheffort 60% 38% 9% 39%

Notcovered/noteligible 8% 9% 10% 9%

Negativeimpactonemployment 5% 4% 6% 5%

Otherreason 10% 10% 11% 10%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100%(a)numbersareroundedtonearest100andmaynotaddtototals*EstimatehasanRSEof25%to50%andshouldbeusedwithcaution


Characteristics by sexMalesaccountedforjustoverhalf(54%)ofallwork-relatedinjuriesincurredbyemployeesbutweremuchmorelikelytoapplyforworkers’compensationfortheirinjurythanfemales.In2009–10,47%ofinjuredmaleemployeesappliedforworkers’compensationcomparedwithonly39%ofinjuredfemaleemployees.Table4showsthatin2005–06theproportionofinjuredemployeeswhoappliedforworkers’compensationwerelower(41%formales,31%forfemales)andthedisparitybetweenthesexeswaslarger.

Table4alsoshowsthatwhilethetotalnumberofinjuredemployeesdecreasedslightlybetweenthesurveys,thenumberofinjuredfemaleemployeesroseby19%whilethenumberofinjuredmaleemployeesfellby13%.Thefallinthenumberofmaleemployeeswhowereinjuredoccurredinthegroupthatdidnotapplyforworkers’compensationwhiletheincreaseinthenumberoffemaleemployeeswhowereinjuredoccurredmainlyinthegroupthatdidapplyforcompensation.Figure3graphsthenumbersshowninTable4.

Table 4: Work-related injuries incurred by employees: number by workers’ compensation status and sex

Male FemaleWorkers’ compensation status 2005–06 2009–10 2005–06 2009–10

Numberofinjuries(a)


Receivedworkers’compensation 133500 128900 57200 85200

Didnotreceiveworkers’compensation 11900 15400 10000 15200


Total injured employees 353 900 309 200 216 800 258 300

PercentageAppliedforworkers’compensation 41% 47% 31% 39%

Receivedworkers’compensation 38% 42% 26% 33%

Didnotreceiveworkers’compensation 3% 5% 5% 6%


Total injured employees 100% 100% 100% 100%(a)numbersareroundedtonearest100andmaynotaddtototals

Figure 3: Employees with a work-related injury: Number by compensation status and sex, 2005–06 and 2009–10

180

240

300

360

ured

em

ploy

ees

('000

)

Total injured employeesApplied for workers' compensationReceived workers' compensation

60

120

180

Male Male Female Female

2005–06 2009–10 2005–06 2009–10

Num

ber o

f inj

ured

e


Figure3showsthatthenumberofmalesemployeeswhoappliedforworkers’compensationin2009–10issimilartothatreportedin2005–06butthatthenumberofinjuriesincurredbythisgrouphasfallennoticeably.Forfemaleemployees,thenumberwhowereinjured,appliedforcompensationandreceivedcompensationallincreased.

Time lostFigure4showsthatmaleandfemaleemployeesincurredinjuriesthatrequiredsimilaramountsoftimeofffromwork.Whilefemaleemployeeshadaslightlylowerproportionthatinvolvednotimeoffwork,theyhadslightlyhigherproportionsthatinvolved5–10daysand11ormoredaysoffwork.

Figure 4: Employees with a work-related injury: Proportion who applied for workers’ compensation by time lost from work and sex, 2009–10

Thesedataindicatethatthemuchlowerproportionoffemaleemployeeswhoappliedforworkers’compensationisnotlinkedtoaloweramountoftimelostfromwork.Figure5showsthatin2009–10theproportionofinjurieswherecompensationwasappliedforincreasedwiththeamountoftimelostfromworkforbothmaleandfemaleemployees,thoughthepatternformaleandfemaleemployeeswasquitedifferent.Forinjuriesinvolvingnotimeoffwork26%ofmaleemployeesappliedforcompensationcomparedwith20%forfemaleemployees.TherewerelargergapsbetweenthesexesforthePart of day/shiftand1–4 daysoffworkcategories.However,oncefivedaysoftimelostwasreached,femaleemployeesshowedagreatertendencythanmaleemployeestoapplyforcompensation,76%offemaleemployeesappliedforcompensationcomparedwith73%formaleemployees.Interestinglyforinjuriesinvolving11ormoredaysoffwork,femaleemployeesonceagainappliedforcompensationlessoftenthanmaleemployees.

Figure5alsoshowsthatthe2005–06surveyshowedasimilarpattern,thoughlowerproportionsoffemaleemployeesappliedforcompensationforallperiodsoftimelostexceptinthecategoryofPart of day/shiftwherethesameproportionwasrecordedforbothmaleandfemaleemployees.Thegraphshowsthattheincreasedproportionforfemalesapplyingforcompensationmainlyoccurredforinjuriesresultingin5–10daysoffwork.In2005–06,54%offemaleemployeeswithaninjuryresultingin5–10daysoffworkappliedforcompensationwhilein2009–10,76%applied.Formaleemployees,increaseswererecordedforallperiodsoftimelost,thelargestbeingforinjuriesinvolvingPart of day/shiftwhichincreasedfrom33%to46%betweenthetwosurveys.

40%

60%

80%

jure

d em

ploy

ees

who

rk

ers'

com

pens

atio

n MaleFemale

0%

20%

40%

None Part of a day/shift 1–4 days 5–10 days 11 days or morePro

porti

on o

f inj

ured

eap

plie

d fo

r wor

kers

' c

Time lost from work due to injury


Figure 5: Employees with a work-related injury: Proportion who applied for workers’ compensation by time lost from work by sex, 2005–06 and 2009–10

Figure6showsthereasonswhyemployeesdidnotapplyforworkers’compensationfortheirwork-relatedinjury.Notethatthesedatadonotaddupto100%astheyarecalculatedasproportionsofallinjuredemployeeswhichincludesthosethatappliedforcompensation.Figure6showsthatfemaleemployeesaremorelikelytonotapplyduetotheirinjurybeingtoominororthatapplyingwastoomucheffort.In2009–10,30%ofinjuredmaleemployeesand36%ofinjuredfemaleemployeescitedthisreason.Forbothsexestheproportionwhocitedthisreasonhasfallenfromtheprevioussurveythoughtherehasbeenagreaterfallforfemaleemployees.

Figure 6: Employees with a work-related injury: Proportion by reason did not apply for compensation by sex, 2005–06 and 2009–10

Figure6alsoshowsthatin2009–10,8%ofinjuredmaleemployeesand11%ofinjuredfemaleemployeesdidnotthinktheywereeligibleforcompensation.Comparisonwiththe2005–06resultsindicatesthatformaleemployeestherehasbeenanimprovementinthisareawithalowerproportionofmaleemployeescitingthisreasonin2009–10comparedtotheprevioussurvey.However,forfemaleemployeesagreaterproportionnowthinktheyarenoteligibleforworkers’compensation.

Therewasalsoasubstantialdecreasebetweenthesurveysintheproportionoffemaleemployeessayingthattheydidnotapplyforworkers’compensationduetothenegativeimpactitmayhaveontheircurrentorfutureemployment.In2009–10only3%offemaleemployeescitedthisasareasonfornotapplyingforworkers’compensationcomparedwith7%in2005–06.Formaleemployeestheproportionwas4%inbothsurveys.

20%

30%

40%

50%

on o

f inj

ured

em

ploy

ees Minor injury/

too much effortNot covered / not eligible

Negative impact on employment

0%

10%

20%


2005–06 2009–10 2005–06 2009–10

Pro

porti

on o

f inj Negative

impact on employmentOther reason

20%

40%

60%

80%

tion

of in

jure

d em

ploy

ees

o ap

plie

d fo

r wor

kers

' co

mpe

nsat

ion

None

Part of a day/ shift1–4 days

5–10 days

0%

20%


2005–06 2009–10 2005–06 2009–10

Pro

porti

on o

f w

ho a

ppl

com

5–10 days11 days or more


Characteristics by age group In2009–10theproportionofemployeeswhoappliedforworkers’compensationincreasedgraduallywithagefrom38%ofemployeesinthe15–24yearsagegroupto44%forthoseinthe45–54yearsagegroup.Theproportionjumpedto52%forthoseinthe55yearsandoveragegroup.However,asFigure7shows,thisoldestagegrouphadthehighestrejectionratewithonly41%actuallyreceivingworkers’compensation.

Figure 7: Work-related injuries incurred by employees: proportion by workers’ compensation status and age group

Thisisadifferentpatterntothe2005–06surveyresultswhichdidnotshowasclearapatternforapplicationswiththe25–34yearsagegrouprecordingthehighestproportion(37%)toreceiveworkers’compensation.Allagegroupshaveshownanincreaseintheproportionwhoappliedforcompensationandtheproportionwhoreceivedcompensationsincethelastsurveyexceptforthe25–34yearsagegroupwhichrecordednochangetotheproportionwhoreceivedcompensationdespiterecordinganincreaseintheproportionwhoappliedforit.Thesedataalsoshowthatthe55yearsandoveragegrouprecordedthelargestincreaseintheproportionswhoappliedforandreceivedworkers’compensation,thoughalsorecordedthelargestincreaseintheproportionwhohadtheirclaimrejected.

Female employeesFigure8showsthatforfemaleemployees,theproportionwhoappliedforworkers’compensationin2009–10increasedwithagefrom33%forthoseinthe15–24yearsagegroupto46%forthoseinthe55yearsandoveragegroup.Theproportionwhoactuallyreceivedcompensationdidnotshowthesameclearpatternthougholderemployeesstillrecordedahigherrateofreceiptofcompensationthanyoungeremployees.

Therehavebeennotableincreasesintheproportionswhoappliedforandreceivedcompensationacrossallagegroupsexceptthe55yearsandoveragegroupwhichrecordedafallintheproportionwhoreceivedworkers’compensationfrom39%downto35%.Thelargestincreaseintheproportionreceivingcompensationoccurredforfemaleemployeesinthe15–24yearsagegroupwhichrosefrom16%in2005–06to31%in2009–10.Despitethisincrease,the15–24yearsagegroupstillhasthesecondlowestproportionofemployeeswhoreceivedcompensationbehindthe25–34yearsagegroup.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

15–24 25–34 35–44 45–54 55 & over

Pro

porti

on o

f in

jure

d em

ploy

ees

Age group (years)

Applied 2009–10Received 2009–10

15–24 25–34 35–44 45–54 55 & overAge group (years)



Figure8alsoshowsthattheproportionofclaimsthatwererejectedincreasedwithagefrom2%ofclaimslodgedbyfemaleemployeesinthe15–24yearsagegroupto11%ofthoseinthe55yearsandoveragegroup.Whilethetypesofclaimsthatwerenotacceptedforcompensationcannotbereliablydeterminedbyage,thedataindicatesthatforallfemaleemployeesclaimsinvolvingmusculoskeletalconditions,crushinginjuriesandmentalconditionsweremorelikelytoberejectedthanotherclaims.

Figure 8: Work-related injuries incurred by female employees: proportion by workers’ compensation status and age group

Male employees Formaleemployeesthepatternbyageforapplyingforcompensationwasnotasclearasforfemaleemployees.Whiletheyoungestagegrouprecordedthelowestproportion(42%)andtheoldestagegrouprecordedthehighest(58%),theagegroupsinthemiddlerecordedsimilarproportions.Allagegroupsrecordednoticeableincreasesfromtheprevioussurveywiththegreatestincreaserecordedformaleemployeesinthe55yearsandoveragegroupwhichin2005–06recordedthelowestproportion(38%).

Figure9showsthatwhilethe2005–06surveyshowedadecreaseinthereceiptofworkers’compensationwithage,the2009–10surveyshowsnodiscerniblepatternbyagewithbetween40%and50%ofinjuredmaleemployeesindicatingthattheyreceivedcompensationfortheirwork-relatedinjury.

Figure 9: Work-related injuries incurred by male employees: proportion by workers’ compensation status and age group

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

15–24 25–34 35–44 45–54 55 & over

Pro

porti

on o

f in

jure

d em

ploy

ees

Age group (years)


15–24 25–34 35–44 45–54 55 & overAge group (years)


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

15–24 25–34 35–44 45–54 55 & over

Pro

porti

on o

f in

jure

d em

ploy

ees

Age group (years)


15–24 25–34 35–44 45–54 55 and overAge group (years)



Thegreatestincreaseinthereceiptofworkers’compensationoccurredinthe55yearsandoveragegroupwith47%ofinjuredmaleemployeesin2009–10sayingtheyhadreceivedworkers’compensationcomparedwith29%in2005–06.

ComparisonofFigure8withFigure7indicatesthatin2009–10femaleemployeeswerearound10%lesslikelytoreceivecompensationthanmaleemployeesofthesameageexceptforemployeesinthe45–54yearsagegroupwherethepercentageofmaleandfemaleemployeeswhoreceivedcompensationinthe2009–10surveyweresimilar.

Time lostFigure10showsthatwheretheinjuryresultedinlessthan5daysoffwork,theproportionofinjuredemployeeswhoreceivedcompensationrangedfrom26%to31%whereasiftheinjuryresultedin5ormoredaysoffworkthentheproportionsrangedfrom59%to69%.

Figure 10: Work-related injuries incurred by employees: Proportion who received workers’ compensation by age group and time lost from work, 2009–10

Reason did not applyFigure11showsthattheproportionofinjuredemployeeswhodidnotapplyforworkers’compensationbecausetheyfelttheinjurywastoominororthatitwastooinconvenienttoapplydecreasedwithagefrom42%ofinjuredemployeesinthe15–24yearsagegroupto22%ofthoseinthe55yearsandoveragegroup.Theproportionwhodidnotapplyastheywereeithernotawareofworkers’compensationorthoughttheywerenoteligibleforitwassimilaracrosstheagegroupsrangingfrom8%to10%.Theotherreasonsemployeesdidnotapplyincludetheemployeragreeingtopaycostsorconcernaboutimpactoncurrentorfutureemployment.

Figure 11: Work-related injuries incurred by employees: Reason did not apply for workers’ compensation by age group, 2009–10

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Less than 5 days 5 or more days

Pro

porti

on o

f inj

ured

em

ploy

ees

who

rece

ived

wor

kers

' co

mpe

nsat

ion

Time lost from work

15–2425–3435–4445–5455 & over

0%

15%

30%

45%

15–24 25–34 35–44 45–54 55 & over

Pro

porti

on o

f inj

ured

em

ploy

ees

Age group (years)

Minor injury / too much effortNot eligible / not awareOther reason


Characteristics by employment conditionsEmployment statusOftheinjuredemployees,75%hadleaveentitlementsand22%didnot.Employeeswithoutleaveentitlementsarecommonlyreferredtoascasuals.Therewereafurther3%thatwereownermanagersofincorporatedenterprises(OMIE)butatthetimeoftheinjuryweredeemedemployeesduetothenatureoftheirworkingarrangement.OMIEshavebeenexcludedfromthefollowinganalysis.

Ofthegroupwithleaveentitlements,48%appliedforcompensationofwhich89%receivedit.Forthegroupwithoutleaveentitlements,32%appliedofwhich82%receivedit.Thismeansthatcasualsarelesslikelytoapplyforcompensationandtheyhaveahigherrejectionratefortheirclaims.

Figure12showsthatfemaleemployeeswithoutleaveentitlementsaretheleastlikelytoapplyforandreceiveworkers’compensationwithonly26%applyingforcompensationofwhichonly80%actuallyreceivedit.Maleemployeeswithoutleaveentitlementsrecordedthesecondlowestproportions.Thegroupmostlikelytoapplyforcompensationwasmaleemployeeswithleaveentitlementswith52%applyingforcompensationofwhich90%receivedit.

Figure 12: Work-related injuries incurred by employees: Proportion who applied and received workers’ compensation by employment status and sex, 2009–10

Figure13showshowtheproportionsthatreceivedworkers’compensationforinjuredemployeeswithandwithoutleaveentitlementschangewithtimelostfromwork.Thesedatashowthatastimelostfromworkincreasessodoesthegapbetweenthetwogroupsofemployeesintheproportionwhoreceivedcompensation,fromadifferenceofonly7%fornotimelosttonearly30%forinjuriesthatresultedin5ormoredaysoffwork.Forinjuriesinvolving5ormoredaysoffwork,72%ofemployeeswithleaveentitlementsreceivedcompensationcomparedwithjust43%foremployeeswithoutleaveentitlements.

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

geofinjuredemployees Appliedforworkers'compensation

Receivedworkers'compensation

0%

10%

20%

Employeeswithleaveentitlements

Employeeswithoutleaveentitlements




Percentageofi


Figure 13: Work-related injuries incurred by employees: Proportion who received workers’ compensation by employment status and time lost, 2009–10

Figure14showsthatagreaterproportionofemployeeswithoutleaveentitlementsthoughttheirinjurywastoominortoclaimcomparedwithemployeeswithleaveentitlements(37%to32%respectively).Thedataalsoshowthatemployeeswithoutleaveentitlementsarealotlesslikelytoknowabouttheirrightstocompensationwith15%believingthattheyarenotcoveredforcompensation,noteligibleforit,ornotawareofworkers’compensationcomparedwith6%foremployeeswithentitlements.

Figure 14: Work-related injuries incurred by employees: Proportion by employment status and reasons did not apply for workers’ compensation, 2009–10

Shiftwork and working hoursFigure15showstheimpactthatworkingundershiftorpart-timearrangementshasontheproportionofinjuredemployeeswhoappliedforworkers’compensation.Asfull-timenon-shiftworkersmakeupthelargestgroupofemployees,itisnotsurprisingthattheproportionsofmaleandfemaleemployeeswhoappliedforcompensationwerethesameasforallemployees(47%formales,39%forfemales).However,forfull-timeshiftworkerssimilarproportionsoffemaleandmaleemployeesappliedforcompensation(52%offemales,50%formales).

Therewasamuchbiggerdifferenceintheproportionsapplyingforcompensationforpart-timeemployeeswhenshiftworkisconsideredwith42%ofpart-timenon-

40%

60%

80%

ofinjuredem

ployeeswho

workers'com

pensation



0%

20%

0%

Notimelost Upto5days 5ormoredays

Percentageofinjure

receivedworkers

Timelostfromwork

20%

30%

40%

ofinjuredem

ployees Employeeswithleaveentitlements


0%

10%

20%

Minorinjury/toomucheffort Notcovered/noteligible Other

Percentageofinju

Reasondidnotapply


shiftworkersapplyingforcompensationcomparedwithjust24%forpart-timeshiftworkers.Thedataarenotshownseparatelyformalesandfemalesduetothesmallnumberofmalepart-timeemployees.

Figure 15: Employees with a work-related injury: Proportion who applied for workers’ compensation by shift work and full time/part time arrangements by sex, 2009–10

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

ofinjuredem

ployeeswho

rworkers'com

pensation

0%

10%

20%

30%

Fulltime Fulltime Parttime Parttime*

Nonshiftworker Shiftworker Nonshiftworker Shiftworker

Proportionofinjuredem

appliedforw

orkers'co

Male Female *estimateisfortotal maleandfemale


Other characteristicsTable5providesinformationonworkers’compensationapplicationsbycountryofbirth.ThesedatashowthatemployeeswhowereborninAustraliaappliedforcompensationfor44%oftheirinjuriesandthoseborninmainEnglishspeakingcountriesotherthanAustraliarecordedasimilarproportion(45%).However,thoseborninothercountriesweremuchlesslikelytoapplyforcompensation(34%).

Allthreegroupsshowedsimilarproportionsfornotclaimingduetotheinjurybeingtoominortoclaim.ThebigdifferencebetweenthegroupsisthatthosebornoutsideofAustraliaweremorelikelytothinktheywerenotcoveredbyworkers’compensationornoteligibleforit.OfthoseborninmainEnglishspeakingcountries,11%didnotapplyforcompensationforthisreasoncomparedto8%ofAustralianborninjuredemployees.Forthoseborninothercountriestheproportionwas19%.

Table 5: Work-related injuries incurred by employees: proportion by reason did not apply for workers’ compensation status and where born, 2009–10

Where born

AustraliaMain English

speaking countries

Other than main English speaking

countriesAppliedforworkers’compensation 44% 45% 34%

Reasondidnotapply

Minorinjury/toomucheffort 34% 32% 30%

Notcovered/didnotthinkeligible 8% 11% 19%

Otherreasons 15% 12% 17%

Total 100% 100% 100%

Figure16showsthattheamountoftimeinthejobpriortoinjuryseemstohavesomeimpactonthelikelihoodofapplyingforcompensation.Only33%ofemployeeswhowereinthejobforlessthan6monthsappliedforcompensationcomparedwith44%forthosewhohadbeeninthejobfor5yearsorlonger.

Figure 16: Employees with a work-related injury: Proportion who applied for workers’ compensation by time in job prior to injury, 2009–10

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Up to 6 months Up to 1 year 1 to 4 years 5 years & over

Pro

porti

on o

f inj

ured

em

ploy

ees

Time in job at time of injury


Characteristics by occupation Figure17showsthatthelargestnumberofemployeesinjuredwereemployedasTechnicians&tradesworkers(20%),followedbyLabourers(16%),Professionals(15%)andCommunity&personalservicesworkers (14%).Thesefouroccupationgroupsalsohadthehighestnumberofemployeeswhoappliedforandreceivedworkers’compensation,thoughfewerProfessionalsappliedforandreceivedcompensationthanCommunity&personalservicesworkers.

Figure 17: Work-related injuries incurred by employees: Number of injured employees and number compensated by occupation, 2009–10

Figure18showsthatin2009–10Labourers werethegroupmostlikelytoapplyforandreceiveworkers’compensationwithjustoverhalf(52%)applyingforcompensationand47%receivingit.Managerswasthegroupleastlikelytoapplyforandreceivecompensationwithonly27%compensated.Clerical&administrativeworkersandSalesworkerswerethegroupswiththegreatestgapsbetweentheproportionswhoappliedforcompensationandthosethatreceivedcompensation.Thissuggeststhattheseemployeesaremorelikelytoputinclaimsforinjurieswhicharenotconsideredwork-related.Thedataarenotrobustenoughtoinvestigatefurther.

Figure 18: Work-related injuries incurred by employees: proportion receiving workers’ compensation by occupation, 2009–10

0

30

60

90

120

Technicians & trades

workers

Labourers Professionals Community & personal service workers

Machinery operators &

drivers

Managers Sales workers*

Clerical & administrative

workers

Num

ber o

f inj

ured

em

ploy

ees

('000

) Total injured employeesApplied for workers' compensationReceived workers' compensation

* estimate for those who received workers' compensation has an RSE between 25% and 50%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Labourers Machinery operators &

drivers

Sales workers*

Technicians & trades workers

Community & personal service workers

Professionals Clerical & administrative

workers

Managers

Pro

porti

on o

f inj

ured

em

ploy

ees Applied for workers' compensation

Received workers' compensation

* estimate for those who received workers' compensation has an RSE between 25% and 50%


Figure19showsthereasonsthatemployeescitedfornotclaimingworkers’compensation.Itshouldbenotedthattheseproportionshouldbeaddedtotheproportionwhoappliedforworkers’compensationtoaddupto100%.Themainreasonfornotapplyingwasthattheemployeefelttheinjurywastoominororapplyingwastoomucheffort.Theproportionsrangedfrom26%forLabourersto41%forClerical&administrativeworkers.

Figure 19: Work-related injuries incurred by employees: reasons did not apply for workers’ compensation by occupation, 2009–10

WhilethedataforNot aware or not eligiblehashighRSEstheyindicateamuchlargerproportionofManagerscitedthisreasonthanotheroccupations.Thisisaconcernasmanagersofemployeesshouldbeawareofworkers’compensation.ItispossiblethatManagersfelttheirparticularinjurywasnoteligibleforcompensation,however,thetypesofinjuriesincurredbythisgroupdonotindicateaparticularlydifferentpatterntotheotheroccupationgroupsexceptforahigherlevelofStress or other mental condition.Managershadahigherproportionofinjuriesthatinvolvedeithernotimeoffworkorjustthedayofinjury,62%ofinjuriescomparedwith41%forLabourers(Figure20).

ManagersalsohadamuchhigherproportionofOther reasonfornotclaiming.Thiscategoryincludesconcernaboutcurrentorfutureemploymentandemployeragreedtopaycostsbothofwhichrecordedhigherestimatesthantheotheroccupationgroups.TheseseparatecategoriesarenotshownduetohighRSEsformanyoftheoccupationgroups.

Figure20showsthatformostoccupationsthereisalinkbetweentakinglessthanonedayoffworkandnotapplyingforworkers’compensationduetotheinjurybeingtoominor.Clerical&administrativeworkershadthehighestproportionwithlessthanonedayoffwork(61%)andthehighestproportionwhocitedMinor injury/ too much effort(41%)astheirreasonfornotapplying.

Labourershadthelowestproportionofinjurieswithlessthanonedayoffwork(41%)andthelowestproportionofinjuredemployeeswhocitedMinor injury/ too much effort(26%)astheirreasonfornotapplyingforworkers’compensation.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Clerical & administrative

workers

Professionals Sales workers*

Technicians & trades

workers



drivers

Managers Labourers

Pro

prtio

n of

inju

red

empl

oyee

s

Reason did not claim workers' compensation

Minor injury / too much effortNot aware or not eligible*Other reason

* estimate has a RSE between 25%and 50% and should be used with caution.


Figure 20: Work-related injuries incurred by employees: time lost due to injury by occupation, 2009–10

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Managers Clerical & administrative

workers


Sales workers

Professionals Technicians & trades workers


drivers

Labourers

Per

cent

age

of in

jure

d em

ploy

ees

Less than 1 day 1–4 days 5 or more days


How the injury occurredFigure23showsthatLifting, pushing or pulling objectwasthecauseormechanismofthehighestnumberofinjuriesincurredbyemployeesfollowedbyHitting, being hit or cutandFall on same levelaccountingfor29%,24%and13%ofinjuriesrespectively.Thesethreemechanismsofinjuryalsohadthehighestnumberofemployeeswhoappliedforandreceivedworkers’compensation.

TheOther mechanismscategoryincludesContact with chemicalandWorking in unchanging positionwhichhad28000and20000employeesrespectivelycitingthesemechanismsasthecauseoftheirinjury.Forthesemechanisms65%and60%respectivelyinvolvednotimeoffworkandhencetheestimatesforthosewhoappliedforworkers’compensationweretoosmalltoshowinFigure23.Itisnotsurprisingthatthereasontheydidnotapplyforcompensationwasthattheyfelttheinjurywastoominortoclaim.

Figure 23: Work-related injuries incurred by employees: Number of injured employees and number compensated by how injury occurred, 2009–10

Figure24showsthatin2009–10,employeeswhoincurredaFall on same level werethemostlikelytoapplyforcompensationbutthosewhoincurredaFall from height werethemostlikelytoreceivecompensation. ThedataindicatethatallemployeeswhoappliedforcompensationduetoaFall from height receivedcompensationwhereasforallothermechanismsaproportionhadtheirclaimrejected.Figure 24: Work-related injuries incurred by employees: proportion applied and

received workers’ compensation by how injury occurred, 2009–10

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

Lifting,pushingor

pullingobject

Hitting,beinghitorcut

Fallonsamelevel

Repetitivemovement*

Exposuretomentalstress*

Fallfromheight*

Othermechanisms

Num

berofinjuredemployees('000)

Howinjuryoccurred

TotalinjuredemployeesAppliedforworkers'compensationReceivedworkers'compensation

*estimateforthosewhoappliedandreceivedworkers'compensationhasanRSEbetween25%and50%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Fallonsamelevel

Fallfromheight*

Lifting,pushingorpullingobject

Repetitivemovement*



Othermechanisms

Proportionofinjuredemployees

Howinjuryoccurred

Appliedforworkers'compensationReceivedworkers'compensation


Exposure to mental stressrecordedthelowestproportionsofthosewhoappliedforandreceivedworkers’compensationofallthemechanismslisted.Thismechanismhasthehighestrejectionrateofallthemechanisms.

Figure25showsthattheproportionofinjuredemployeeswhoreceivedworkers’compensationhasshownsomenotableincreasesforafewmechanisms.ForHitting, being hit or cuttheproportionwhoreceivedworkers’compensationincreasedfrom31%to39%.

Repetitive movementandFall from height alsoshowednotableincreasesthoughthesedatahavehigherRSEsthanmostoftheothersandshouldbeusedwithcaution.

Figure 25: Work-related injuries incurred by employees: proportion received workers’ compensation by how injury occurred, 2009–10 and 2005–06

Datashowingreasonsinjuredemployeesdidnotapplyforcompensationisnotrobustenoughtoincludeinthissection.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Fallfromheight*

Fallonsamelevel

Lifting,pushingorpullingobject


Repetitivemovement*


Othermechanisms


Howinjuryoccurred

Received2009–10Received2005–06

*estimateforthosewhoappliedandreceivedworkers'compensationhasanRSEbetween25%and


Type of injury Intermsofthetypesofinjuriesincurred,Figure26showsthatSprain/strain accountedforthehighestnumberofinjuriesfollowedbyChronic joint or muscle conditionandCut/open wound.Thesethreetypesofinjuryaccountedfor63%ofinjuriesand68%oftheinjuriesthatwerecompensated.Superficial injuryrecordedthelowestnumberofincidentsandthelowestnumberthatwerecompensatedpossiblyduetothefactthat62%involvednotimelostfromwork.

Figure 26: Work-related injuries incurred by employees: Number of injured employees and number compensated by nature of injury, 2009–10

Figure27showsthatemployeeswhoincurredaFractureweremorelikelytoapplyforandreceivecompensationcomparedwithothertypesofinjuries.Justoverhalf(52%)ofallFractureinjurieswerecompensatedin2009–10.Chronic joint or muscle condition injuriesandSprain/strain hadthenexthighestproportionsofemployeeswhoappliedforandreceivedcompensationfortheirinjury.

Figure 27: Work-related injuries incurred by employees: proportions applied for and received workers’ compensation by nature of injury, 2009–10

Crushing injury whichincludesinternalorgandamageandamputationsrecordedthehighestrejectionrateforworkers’compensationclaimsin2009–10.While42%appliedforcompensationjust26%receivedit.Thisisdifferenttothe2005–06surveywhichshowed42%receivedcompensationandhencethe2009–10resultmaybeduetosampledesignissues(Figure28).

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

Sprain/strain Chronicjointormusclecondition

Cut/openwound

Crushinginjury

Fracture Burns* Stressorothermentalcondition*

Superficialinjury*

OtherNum

berofinjuredemployees('000)

Typeofinjury

TotalinjuredemployeesAppliedforworkers'compensationReceivedworkers'compensation


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Fracture Chronicjointormusclecondition

Sprain/strain Crushinginjury

Burns* Stressorothermentalcondition*

Cut/openwound

Superficialinjury*

Other


Typeofinjury

Appliedforworkers'compensationReceivedworkers'compensation

*estimatehasaRSEbetween25%and50%


ForStress or other mental conditionthedatashowsasubstantialincreaseintheproportionwhoreceivedworkers’compensationin2009–10comparedwith2005–06.Therewereincreasesinboththeproportionwhoappliedforcompensationandtheproportionwhoreceivedit.

ModestincreaseswererecordedforChronic joint or muscle condition injuriesandSprain/strain whileforFracture,Cut/open woundandSuperficial injurythetwosurveysshowedsimilarresults.

Figure 28: Work-related injuries incurred by employees: proportion who received workers’ compensation by nature of injury, 2009–10 and 2005–06

Datashowingreasonsinjuredemployeesdidnotapplyforcompensationisnotrobustenoughtoincludeinthissection.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Fracture Chronicjointormusclecondition

Sprain/strain Cut/openwound

Crushinginjury

Stressorothermentalcondition*

Superficialinjury*

OtherProportionofinjuredemployeeswho

receivedworkers'com

pensation

Typeofinjury

Received2009–10Received2005–06

*estimateforthosewhoreceivedworkers'compensationhasanRSEbetween25%and50%


Financial assistanceWhile38%ofinjuredemployeesreceivedworkers’compensation,therewereothertypesoffinancialassistancethatwereused.Figure29showsthemaincategoriesofassistance.ItshouldbenotedthataninjuredemployeecanaccessmorethanoneformofassistanceandhencethetotaloftheproportionsinFigure29canexceed100%.Thedatashowthatastimelostfromworkincreased,injuredemployeesweremorelikelytoaccessmorethanoneformofassistance.Theseresultsaresimilartothosefoundin2005–06.

Whileitisnotunexpectedthatover60%ofinjuredemployeeswithnotimeoffworkdidnotreceiveanyformoffinancialassistance,itisofconcernthat12%ofthosewithinjuriesthatrequired5ormoredaysoffworkdidnotreceiveanyfinancialassistance.

Otherthanworkers’compensation,themostaccessedformofassistancewasemployerprovidedsickleave.Sickleavewasusedbyaroundone-third(31%)ofinjuredemployeeswhotooklessthan5daysoffworkandnearly20%useditforinjuriesinvolvinglongerperiodsoftimeoffwork.

Employerpaymentsotherthansickleaveweremorefrequentlyusedwherenotimewaslostfromwork.Thesepaymentswerelikelytocovermedicalexpenses.Fortheinjuriesrequiringsometimeoffworkthesepaymentscouldincludeannualleave.

Medicareorothersocialsecuritypaymentswereaccessedequallyregardlessoftimelost,witharound7%ofinjuredemployeesaccessingthistypeoffinancialassistance.Comparisonwithdatafrom2005–06showsonlyaslightreductioninthenumberofinjuredemployeesaccessingthesetypesofpaymentsin2009–10.

Figure 29: Work-related injuries incurred by employees: Source of financial assistance by time lost from work, 2009–10

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

e of

inj

ured

em

ploy

ees

No time off

Up to 4 days

5 days or more

0%

10%

20%

30%

No financial assistance

Received workers'

compensation

Sick leave Employer other payment

Medicare & social security

Other

Per

cent

age

of i

nj

Source of financial assistance


Glossary Applied for workers’ compensationTohaveformallyappliedforworkers’compensationbycompletinganapplicationforcompensation.

EmployeesPeoplewhoworkforapublicorprivateemployerandreceiveremunerationinwages,salary,aretainerfeefromtheiremployerwhileworkingonacommissionbasis,tips,piecerates,orpaymentinkind,orpeoplewhooperatetheirownincorporatedenterprisewithorwithouthiringemployees.

Employment statusEmployedpeoplewereclassifiedbywhethertheywereemployees,employers,ownaccountworkersorcontributingfamilyworkers.Thispublicationonlyincludesinjuriesincurredbyemployees.

Financial assistanceMonetaryassistancereceivedfromanypartytocovermedicalexpensesorincomeloss,incurredduetotheirwork-relatedinjuryorillness.

How injury occurredTheaction,exposureoreventthatwasthedirectcauseoftheinjury,orhowtheinjurywassustained.SeeAppendix1.

IndustryAgroupofbusinessesororganisationsthatperformsimilarsetsofactivitiesintermsoftheproductionofgoodsorservices.TheindustryoftheemployeehasbeenclassifiedinaccordancewiththeAustralian and New Zealand Standard Industrial Classification(ANZSIC),2006(ABSCat.No.1292.0).

Main English speaking countriesComprisestheUnitedKingdom,Ireland,Canada,SouthAfrica,theUnitedStatesofAmericaandNewZealand.

OccupationAcollectionofjobsthataresufficientlysimilarintheirmaintaskstobegroupedtogetherforthepurposesofclassification.TheoccupationoftheemployeehasbeenclassifiedinaccordancewiththeAustralian and New Zealand Standard Classification of Occupations(ANZSCO),FirstEdition,2006(ABSCat.No.1222.0).

Owner managers of incorporated enterprisesPeoplewhoworkintheirownincorporatedenterprise,thatis,abusinessentitywhichisregisteredasaseparatelegalentitytoitsmembersorowners(alsoknownasalimitedliabilitycompany).

Paid leave entitlementsTheentitlementofemployeestoeitherpaidholidayleaveand/orpaidsickleaveintheirjob.


Relative Standard Errors (RSEs) AllWRISdatapresentedinthisreportconformwiththeABSguidelinesregardingdataquality.Unlessotherwisemarked,alldatapresentedhaveRSEsbelow25%.DatawithRSEsabove50%havenotbeenpublished.ComprehensiveinformationaboutRSEscanbefoundintheWRISpublication.

Shift arrangementsAsystemofworkingwherebythedailyhoursofoperationattheplaceofemploymentaresplitintoatleasttwosetworkperiods(shifts),fordifferentgroupsofemployees.

Time lost from workIncludesallworkhoursspentonmedicalconsultation,hospitalisationandrestduetotheinjuryorillness.Thedaysorshiftsabsentdonothavetobeconsecutive.

Type of injuryReferstothemaininjurysustained.SeeAppendix1.

Work-related injury or illnessAnyinjuryorillnessordiseasewhichfirstoccurredinthelast12months,whereapersonsufferseitherphysicallyormentallyfromaconditionthathasarisenoutof,orinthecourseof,employment.Theinjuryorillnesswasconsideredtobeinscopeofthesurveyiftherespondentfirstbecameawareofitinthelast12months,eventhoughthecauseoftheinjuryorillnessmayhaveoccurredoutsidethe12monthreferenceperiod.Includedareinjuriesorillnessesthatoccurredwhilecommutingtoandfromwork,outsidetheplaceofworkbutwhileonworkduty,orduringworkbreaks.Informationwascollectedabouttherespondent’smostrecentwork-relatedinjuryorillnessiftherewasmorethanonework-relatedinjuryorillnessinthereferenceperiod.

Work-related Injuries Survey (WRIS)TheABSaspartofitsMulti-purposeHouseholdsurveycollecteddataonwork-relatedinjuriesfromJuly2009toJune2010.StatisticsfromthistopicwerepublishedinWork-related Injuries(CatNo.6324.0).Thepublicationpresentedinformationaboutpersonsaged15yearsoroverwhoworkedatsometimeinthelast12monthsandexperiencedtheirmostrecentwork-relatedinjuryorillnessinthatperiod.

Workers’ compensationIncludespaymentsbyaninsurerorotherliablepartyforcostsrelatedtoawork-relatedinjuryorillness;medicalpayments,incapacitypayments(incomemaintenanceandsalarytop-up),rehabilitationpayments,travelpaymentsandlegalpayments;andany‘settlement’or‘judgementofclaim’.


Appendix 1: Injury ClassificationsWork-relatedinjuriesdataareclassifiedaccordingtotheTypeofOccurrenceClassificationsSystem(TOOCS)whichwasdevelopedbySafeWorkAustraliaforcodingworkers’compensationclaims.Thework-relatedinjuryorillnessclassificationusedinthissurveywasbasedontheTOOCSnatureofinjurycodes.Theclassificationofhowwork-relatedinjuryorillnessoccurredwasbasedontheTOOCSmechanismofinjurycodes.

Type of work-related Injury or illnessBurns Electricalburns,chemicalburns,coldburns,hotburns,frictionburns,combinationburnorburnsnotelsewhereclassified

Chronic joint or muscle condition ArthritisDisordersofthejointsDisordersofthespinalvertebraeandintervertebraldiscsDisordersofmuscle,tendonsandothersofttissues(e.g.OccupationalOveruseSyndromeandRepetitiveStrainInjuryifthisistheonlydescriptiongiven)Acquiredmusculoskeletaldeformities(e.g.flatfeet,malletfinger,hammertoe)

Crushing injury InternalinjuryofchestabdomenandpelvisInjurywithintactskinsurfaceandcrushinginjury(e.g.bruises,haematomas)Traumaticamputationincludinglossofeyeball

Cut/open wound Openwoundnotinvolvingtraumaticamputation(e.g.brokentooth,cuts,punctures,dogbites,tearingawayoffingernail,seriouswoundscontainingglass,metalorotherforeignbody)

Fracture Breakingofabone,cartilage,etc.

Sprain/strain SprainsandstrainsofjointsandadjacentmusclesAcutetraumasprainsandstrainsSprainsandstrainsofcartilageDislocations

Stress or other mental condition Stress,anxietyordepressionNervousbreakdownEffectsofwitnessingtraumaticeventsEffectsofinvolvementinahold-upVictimofharassmentHyperventilation(hysterical,psychogenic)HystericalsymptomsPhobiasObsessionalandcompulsivesymptomsShorttermshock


Superficial injury - covers minor injuries such as: NeedlestickpunctureAbrasions,grazes,frictionburnsorblistersScratchinjuryfromaforeignbodyineyeSplinterorotherforeignbodyinplacesotherthaneye

Other Responsesthatcouldnotbeincludedintooneofthecategoriesabovesuchasasthma,cancer,concussionorheartattack

How work-related injury or illness occurred Fall from a height AfallfromgroundleveltobelowgroundlevelLandingawkwardlyafterajumpfromaheightFallingoffananimalAfalldownstairsetc.

Fall on same level Allslips,trips,stumbles,stepsandjumps,evenifafalldoesnotfollowFallsofshortdistancessuchasoffacurborintoagutterFallsupstairsFallwithnofurtherdescription

Hitting, being hit or cut Hittingstationaryobjectsormovingobjects(e.g.cuttingoneselfwhileusingaknifeorothertool)Rubbingandchafingfromwearingfootwearorclothes,usingtoolsorhandlingobjectsBeinghitbyfallingobjectsBeingbittenbyananimalBeingbittenbyasnakeBeingtrappedbymovingmachineryorequipmentorbetweenstationaryandmovingobjectsExposuretomechanicalvibration(e.g.fromchainsaws)Beingassaultedbyapersonorpersons

Lifting, pushing, pulling, bending Muscularstresswhilelifting,carryingorputtingdownobjectsSingleormultipleeventsLiftingorcarryingresultinginstressfracturesRepetitivemovement,highmuscleloadingMuscularstresswhilehandlingobjectsSingleormultipleeventsPushingorpullingobjectsThrowingorpressingobjectsStressfracturesfromhandlingobjectsContinuallyshovellingClimbingladderscausingupperandlowerlimbinjuriesMuscularstresswithnoobjectsbeinghandledBendingdown,reaching,turningandtwistingmovementswherenoobjectsarebeinghandledStressfractureswithoutobjectsbeinghandled(e.g.fromrunning)Continuallytwistingneckwithnoobjectbeinghandled


Repetitive movement OccupationaloveruseandrepetitivemovementoccurrencesProlongedstanding,workingincrampedorunchangingpositionsWorkingincrampedorunchangingpositionsProlongedstandingcausingvaricoseveins

Exposure to mental stress ExposuretoatraumaticeventExposuretoworkplaceoroccupationalviolence(e.g.victimofassaultorthreatenedassaultbyapersonorpersons,beingavictimoforwitnessinghold-upsetc.)Beingavictimofsexual,racial,orotherverbalharassmentWorkpressure(e.g.mentalstressarisingfromworkresponsibilities,conflictwithpeers,performancecounselling)AttemptedsuicideOthermentalstressfactors

Other inthispublicationincludes:Vehicle accident Anyaccidentorincidentonaprivateroad,farm,minesiteorfootpathinvolvingavehiclewherethemostseriousinjuryissustainedasaresultofthataccidentorinjuryAvehiclecatchingonfireaftertheaccidentAnyaccidentorincidentinafactory,mineorcarparkinvolvingafallfromamovingvehicle

Thoseresponsesthatcouldnotbeincludedintooneofthecategoriesabovesuchascontactwithhotfood/drink/beverages,exposuretoextremeweather,jumpingonobjects,struckbylighteningorsunburn

Long term exposure to sound Longtermexposuretoworkshoporfactorynoise,sharpsuddensounds,orlowfrequency(subsonicpressure)sounds

Contact with a chemical or substance SinglecontactwithchemicalorsubstanceImmediateallergicreactionstoasubstanceSplashwithacidCausticorcorrosivesubstancesintheeyesContactdermatitisSwallowingchemicalsubstancesExposuretosmokefromabushfire,chemicalfireetc.

Long term contact with chemicals or substances AcquiredallergicreactionsSlowpoisoning,aswithleadorotherheavymetalsLongterminhalationofdustorfibres,aswithasbestosfibresExposuretocigarettesmokeInsectandspiderbitesandstingsContactwithpoisonouspartsofplantormarinelife(e.g.blueringedoctopus,bluebottles,stonefishetc.)Otherandunspecifiedcontactwithchemicalorsubstance


Technical NoteThework-relatedinjuriesstatisticswerecompiledfromdatacollectedintheMultipurposeHouseholdSurvey(MPHS)thatwasconductedthroughoutAustraliainthe2009–10financialyearasasupplementtotheABSmonthlyLabourForceSurvey(LFS).

ThepublicationLabour Force, Australia(cat.no.6202.0)containsinformationaboutsurveydesign,scope,coverageandpopulationbenchmarksrelevanttothemonthlyLFS,whichalsoappliestotheMPHS.Italsocontainsdefinitionsofdemographicandlabourforcecharacteristics,andinformationabouttelephoneinterviewingrelevanttoboththemonthlyLFSandMPHS.

TheconceptualframeworkusedinAustralia’sLFSalignscloselywiththestandardsandguidelinessetoutinResolutionsoftheInternationalConferenceofLabourStatisticians.DescriptionsoftheunderlyingconceptsandstructureofAustralia’slabourforcestatistics,andthesourcesandmethodsusedincompilingtheseestimates,arepresentedinLabour Statistics: Concepts, Sources and Methods(cat.no.6102.0.55.001).

COLLECTION METHODOLOGYABSinterviewersconductedpersonalinterviewsbyeithertelephoneoratselecteddwellingsduringthe2009–10financialyear.Eachmonthasampleofapproximately1300dwellingswereselectedforthemainMPHSsample,andapproximately1300to1400additionaldwellingswereselectedfortheextraMPHSsample.Inthesedwellings,aftertheLFShadbeenfullycompletedforeachpersoninthehousehold,ausualresidentaged15yearsandoverwasselectedatrandomandaskedtheadditionalMPHSquestionsinapersonalinterview.InformationforthissurveywascollectedusingComputerAssistedInterviewing(CAI),wherebyresponsesarerecordeddirectlyontoanelectronicquestionnaireinanotebookcomputer.

SCOPEThescopeoftheLFSisrestrictedtopeopleaged15yearsandoverandexcludesthefollowing:

• membersofthepermanentdefenceforces;• certaindiplomaticpersonnelofoverseasgovernments,customarily

excludedfromcensusandestimatedpopulationcounts;• overseasresidentsinAustralia;and• membersofnon-Australiandefenceforces(andtheirdependants).

Inadditionthe2009–10MPHSexcludedthefollowing:

• peoplelivinginveryremotepartsofAustralia;and• peoplelivinginnon-privatedwellingssuchashotels,university

residences,studentsatboardingschools,patientsinhospitals,residentsofhomes(e.g.retirementhomes,homesforpeoplewithdisabilities),andinmatesofprisons.

The2009–10MPHSwasconductedinbothurbanandruralareasinallstatesandterritories,butexcludedpeoplelivinginveryremotepartsofAustralia.Theexclusionofthesepeoplewillhaveonlyaminorimpactonanyaggregateestimatesthatareproducedforindividualstatesandterritories,excepttheNorthernTerritorywheresuchpeopleaccountforaround23%ofthepopulation.


SAMPLE SIZETheinitialtotalsamplefortheWork-RelatedInjuriestopicincludedintheMPHS2009–10consistedofapproximately38655privatedwellinghouseholds,whichisapproximatelydoublethestandardMPHSsample.Ofthe32760privatedwellinghouseholdsthatremainedinthesurveyaftersampleloss(e.g.householdswithLFSnon-response,noresidentsinscopefortheLFSorwork-relatedinjuriestopic,vacantorderelictdwellingsanddwellingsunderconstruction),approximately88%werefullyrespondingtotheMPHS.Thenumberofcompletedinterviewsobtainedfromtheseprivatedwellinghouseholds(aftertakingintoaccountthescope,coverageandsub-samplingexclusions)was28554(14205forthemainsampleand14349fortheextrasample).

ESTIMATION METHODSWeightingistheprocessofadjustingresultsfromasamplesurveytoinferresultsforthetotalinscopepopulation.Todothis,a‘weight’isallocatedtoeachsampleunit,which,fortheMPHS,caneitherbeapersonorahousehold.Theweightisavaluewhichindicateshowmanypopulationunitsarerepresentedbythesampleunit.Thefirststepincalculatingweightsforeachunitistoassignaninitialweight,whichistheinverseoftheprobabilityofbeingselectedinthesurvey.Theinitialweightsarethencalibratedtoalignwithindependentestimatesofthepopulationofinterest,referredtoas‘benchmarks’.Weightsarecalibratedagainstpopulationbenchmarkstoensurethatthesurveyestimatesconformtotheindependentlyestimateddistributionofthepopulationratherthanthedistributionwithinthesampleitself.

Thesurveywasbenchmarkedtotheestimatedcivilianpopulationaged15yearsandoverlivinginprivatedwellingsineachstateandterritory,excludingthescopeexclusionslistedabove.Theprocessofweightingensuresthatthesurveyestimatesconformtopersonbenchmarksbystate,partofstate,ageandsex,andtohouseholdbenchmarksbystate,partofstateandhouseholdcomposition.Thesebenchmarksareproducedfromestimatesoftheresidentpopulationderivedindependentlyofthesurvey.

RELIABILITY OF THE ESTIMATESEstimatesinthispublicationaresubjecttosamplingandnon-samplingerrors:

• Samplingerroristhedifferencebetweenthepublishedestimateandthevaluethatwouldhavebeenproducedifalldwellingshadbeenincludedinthesurvey.

• Non-samplingerrorsareinaccuraciesthatoccurbecauseofimperfectionsinreportingbyrespondentsandinterviewers,anderrorsmadeincodingandprocessingdata.Theseinaccuraciesmayoccurinanyenumeration,whetheritbeafullcountorasample.Everyeffortismadetoreducethenon-samplingerrortoaminimumbycarefuldesignofquestionnaires,intensivetrainingandsupervisionofinterviewers,andeffectiveprocessingprocedures.

COMPARABILITY WITH MONTHLY LFS STATISTICSDuetodifferencesinthescopeandsamplesizeoftheMPHSandthatoftheLFS,theestimationproceduremayleadtosomevariationsbetweenlabourforceestimatesfromthissurveyandthosefromtheLFS.

Inquiries Forfurtherinformationregardingthecontentsofthepublicationcontact:

TheData&AnalysisSection

Safe Work Australia (02)61219256

work-related injuries in australia: who did and didn’t ... · who did and didn’t receive...

Documents