Availability Of Compensation Research Articles

Am I Paid Well Enough to Be Diagnosed with COVID-19? Determinants of Gender Differences in Infection Detection Rate among Polish Working Age Population.

In comparison to Western European countries, Poland had a relatively lower percentage of its population diagnosed with COVID-19. Moreover, even the detected cases were not showing any pattern consistent with the expected chance of infection and were at best only remotely related to the severity of the illness that is known to increase with age. Instead, the crucial factor in detecting illness was whether the individual was likely to receive adequate compensation for being confined to their home, with employed women being the most likely to be diagnosed. In every Polish sub-region (powiat), in the 25–54 age group, the share of men diagnosed with COVID-19 was lower than that of women, with the missing share ranging from 8% to 36%. Based on the regression model (adjusted R² = 43.9%), there were relevant non-economic factors such as education, vaccination rate and increasing median age that were reducing this gap. However, the key factors, such as the share of population entitled to sick leave derived from employment rate, or the share of the self-employed population who were unlikely to receive adequate compensation, were related to economic incentives. It would seem that gender differences, in reaction to economic stimuli, widened the discrepancies, as the same factors were affecting women as well. While the testing rates in Poland, the lowest of all the EU countries, clearly played a role in creating the environment in which testing was perceived by the general population as somewhat optional, Polish citizens themselves through their actions aggravated the problem further, creating the impression of people receiving inadequate or no compensation for their time of self-isolation. In spite of well-intentioned government efforts to extend compensation to at least some groups, a significant share of the population clearly behaved as if they feared self-isolation more than the actual virus. Therefore, for both compliance and fairness purposes, both the severity of restrictions and the availability of compensation should be reconsidered.

RECOVERING NON-PECUNIARY LOSSES IN BREACH OF EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT UNDER MALAYSIAN LAW

Dismissal from employment is the prerogative of the employer. An impending dismissal must be carried out fairly with the affected employee given the right to be heard. When a dismissal has been effected in high-handed manner, it may have real prospect of humiliation and embarrassment to the employee. Besides besmirching his reputation, it can also affect the employee’s ability to seek new employment, forcing him to accept employment offering lower wages than what would have been expected in the type of work, or even causing him ill health, among others. The availability of compensation for non-pecuniary losses such as wounded feelings or the effect of the dismissal on his reputation or the chances of finding other employment arising from the manner of the dismissal were excluded by the House of Lords in their landmark case of Addis v Gramophone Co Ltd [1909] AC 488. Such compensation was disallowed mainly because the common law perceived employment contract as an ordinary commercial contract and that such contract is not intended to shelter the parties from anxiety. The situation in the 21 st century is however markedly different from 1909 where with the advancement of information technology, the transmission of information regarding the manner of a dismissal is borderless and thus, having far reaching consequences on the claimant. In light of the above, this paper discusses the high-handed manner of a dismissal, its impact on the employee and the availability of compensation for non-pecuniary losses under the statutory unfair or unjustifiable dismissal. Reference is made to the law and practice in selected countries namely, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. In the context of Malaysia, it will be contended that an employee that had been subjected to deplorable acts of victimisation while in employment and any high-handed manner of a dismissal, among others, should be awarded the non-pecuniary compensation.

Loss of chance in Australia: Tabet v Gett [2010] HCA 12

The availability of compensation for loss of chance in clinical negligence cases appeared to be available in Australia for a time, even after the conclusion reached by the House of Lords in Gregg v Scott. However, the issue only recently came for consideration by Australia's highest appellate court, which in Tabet v Gett adopted an approach more closely aligned with the majority in Greg v Scott. Unlike the factual background to Gregg v Scott, in Tabet v Gett the patient's physical condition had already crystallized. For that reason, the Australian decision may be of interest to readers in the United Kingdom as some commentators have suggested that a factual scenario similar to that in the Australian case may have given rise to a different outcome.

Compensation issues under the Bunkers Convention

Oil tankers are not the only vessels that cause oil pollution damage at sea. Numerous spills at sea have been of heavy fuel oil from non-tankers. The international system of civil liability and compensation established after the Torrey Canyon incident covers only oil pollution damage caused by oil tankers. There was thus a need to bring the law on marine oil pollution up-to-date by extending liability and compensation to all sea-going vessels. In March 2001, the Bunkers Convention was adopted at a Diplomatic Conference at the IMO; it has not yet come into force. This paper focuses on the discussion of compensation issues under the Bunkers Convention. It analyses the relevant provisions, the impacts of components such as compulsory insurance on the availability of compensation under the Bunkers Convention. Suggestions on other compensation sources are also given in this paper.