Cebu employees briefed on benefits and services

CEBU - Employees Compensation Commission, an agency attached to the Department of Labor and Employment, yesterday briefed Cebu employees on compensation claims based on work-connected sickness or injury, or their families in case of work-connected death.

It was the first time that ECC, the agency created to implement the EC program, went to Cebu to advocate to employees.

Its officials said they are hoping to campaign to over 80 companies in Cebu after successfully advocating to 90 to 100 companies in Davao.

The ECC is tasked to provide occupationally-disabled workers and their dependents with prompt, meaningful and adequate benefits and services as compensation for employment-related contingencies.

EC claims are filed at the Social Security System for the private sector and the Government Service Insurance System for the public sector.

In the event the SSS or GSIS denies the employees’ compensation case, the claimants may file an appeal at the ECC, which will then review and decide to affirm them or not.

ECC executive director Benjamin Vitasa said that there are almost 400 claimants who have filed an appeal at their office this year.

In 2007, he said there are 658 EC-appealed cases—75 percent from SSS and 25 percent from GSIS.

Vitasa said that ECC delivers a comprehensive package of benefits to qualified Filipino workers, including income benefit, medical benefits, death benefits, preventive services, and rehabilitation services.

Further, over 30 occupational and compensable diseases are under the ECC program, with cancer as the leading case and asbestosis as the least.

Meanwhile, ECC pointed out that in cases of accidents caused by “notorious negligence,” workers are not entitled to the benefits provided by the ECC.

According to the ECC, notorious negligence is something more than simple or contributory negligence. It signifies a deliberate act of the employee to disregard his own personal safety.

Also, disobedience to rules, orders and prohibitions does not in itself constitute notorious negligence, if there is no intention that can be attributed to the injured to end his life. — Niña Chrismae G. Sumacot/WAB   (THE FREEMAN)