Thread Content
He started working at Coal Mine A in March 2008; after passing the health examination organized by the mine, he began to work on coal mining and tunneling tasks underground. A written labor contract was signed between the two parties, and he was enrolled in work-related injury insurance. On May 21, 2012, He was injured by gangue while working underground; his injury was recognized as a work-related injury, and he was assessed as having an impairment of grade 8 by the municipal labor ability assessment committee. In February 2013, He reached a settlement agreement with Coal Mine A: the labor relationship between the two parties was terminated, and Coal Mine A paid He a one-time sum of 72,700 yuan as compensation for his disabilities. In April 2013, He was diagnosed with stage 1 coal worker’s pneumoconiosis by the city’s disease control center due to health issues. He then applied for arbitration, requesting Coal Mine A to pay him the work-related injury benefits in accordance with the standards set for occupational diseases of type 1 coal worker’s pneumoconiosis. So, who should bear the cost of He’s compensation for occupational diseases in the first phase? Will his claims be supported? During the arbitration process, two different opinions emerged. The first view holds that Article 36 of the Law on the Prevention and Control of Occupational Diseases stipulates that for workers engaged in tasks involving exposure to occupational disease hazards, employers shall, in accordance with the regulations set by the health administration department of the State Council, organize occupational health examinations before employment, during employment, and upon leaving employment, and shall inform the workers of the results of these examinations truthfully. Although He had terminated his employment relationship with Coal Mine A by the time he discovered he had an occupational disease, Coal Mine A should, in accordance with legal provisions, conduct a pre-employment health examination for him and inform him of the results; otherwise, it shall be considered an act of infringement by the employer. Therefore, whether the employer conducts a pre-departure medical examination for employees becomes the key to resolving this case. If Coal Mine A conducted a health check-up for He before he left his job, it is likely that he would have been diagnosed with an occupational disease before the employment relationship was terminated. It is also impossible for him to be diagnosed with stage 1 coal worker’s pneumoconiosis two months after the termination of the employment relationship. Since He was covered by work-related injury insurance, according to local regulations, the one-time disability allowance and one-time medical allowance as part of his compensation for the occupational disease will be provided by the work-related injury insurance authority in the area where Coal Mine A is registered, which in turn **reduces the employer’s risk associated with employing such workers. In this case, Coal Mine A failed to arrange a pre-departure medical examination for He, and being He’s final employer, it should bear the responsibility for providing him with compensation related to occupational diseases. Here, although Coal Mine A and Mr. He reached an agreement in February 2013 regarding Mr. He’s disability grade of 8 and terminated their employment relationship, the coal mine is still required, in accordance with the provisions of the Work-related Injury Insurance Regulations, to make up the difference by paying Mr. He the one-time disability allowance for the first phase of compensation related to his occupational disease; it must also pay the full amount of the one-time employment allowance and the one-time medical allowance. He’s claims should be supported by the arbitration commission and the court. The second view holds that once an employee has terminated the labor relationship with the employer, they must assume the legal responsibilities arising from their signature and should not continue to seek rights from the employer. In accordance with Article 62 of the Law on the Prevention and Control of Occupational Diseases, which states that \"workers suffering from occupational diseases whose employers no longer exist or whose labor relations cannot be confirmed may apply to the local civil affairs department for medical assistance as well as support in areas such as living conditions,\" Mr. He can only turn to the local civil affairs department for assistance. In this case, with the protection of workers’ legitimate rights and interests as a priority, the arbitration committee adopted the first viewpoint.