MERGED: MBF rule change-Vote No?

[gottaloveflying]

Gday guys,

This came up at work today and seeing as I didn't see anything on here thought I'd draw peoples attention to it.

The Mutual Benefit Fund's Loss of licence cover have introduced new rules which we are meant to vote on from tomorrow (friday 6 March).

They have changed a rule to say that if you are receiving work cover payments you will not get any payments from MBF, for either temporary or permanent loss of licence.

Read the amended rule 6c and see what you think.

6c) The Fund shall not be liable to make payment of Benefits to a Member where the Member’s Class 1 Medical Certificate has been suspended or Permanently Lost for any disability in respect of which, in the Trustee’s reasonable opinion, the Member either is currently or would be entitled to receive any periodical or other payments (including, but not limited to workers’ compensation) under state or federal legislation, unless the disability has been specifically accepted by the Trustee

Looking at workersComp it looks like your monthly payments could be as low as 75% of your normal income and I believe the total is capped at a fraction of what you'd be entitled to from the MBF.

Looking at the MBF website and all their claims of not reducing their payments due to other income I'd say they're trying to change a rather significant part of their cover.

[Jamair]

Yeah, I was asking myself the same question. I've got MBF mostly to allow me to pay for the mortgage if i lose my medical; costs me over $3500/yr. By this rule, as I read it, if I lose my medical due to an incident at work, or on the way to work, then I'm under Workcover & will NOT receive MBF payout. I could be stuck with, say loss of sight in one eye from a workplace incident, lose my medical, be limited to Workcover at 75% of my current income, and NOT get the lumpsum I'll need from MBF to pay out the family home. Anyone read it differently? I'll be voting NO if that's whats on the table.:uhoh:

[Fonz121]

This is their reasoning behind it...

"The Trustee would like, to the extent
possible, pay out the full amount of
Members' claims.
To ensure there are sufficient funds
within the Fund to meet those claims
the Trustee is of the view that
Members who have an entitlement to
receive benefits from other entities,
such as WorkCover, should first be
obliged to exhaust those avenues.
Accordingly, this expanded Rule
provides the ability for the Trustee to
exclude or defer claims where the
Member should be receiving other
benefits, such as workers
compensation and others.
If a Member has no relevant
entitlements then this Rule will be of
no effect."

So will you still receive your full payout after you've exhausted government funds?

[Hempy]

By this rule, as I read it, if I lose my medical due to an incident at work, or on the way to work, then I'm under Workcover

Didn't the workcover rules change a few years ago so that now you are NOT covered 'to or from' work but only at work?

[Creampuff]

So if the Trustee’s reasonable opinion is that you would be entitled to – not actually being presently paid – periodic or other payments of any amount from anyone else in respect of your injury, the MBF doesn’t have to pay?

Hey guys: I’ll give you the same deal, for half the premium you’re paying now.

You’d have the benefit of certainty that every claim you made would receive this response: “My opinion is that you would be entitled to some payment from someone, somewhere, in respect of your injury. So I’m not liable.”

Pretty safe bet my opinion’s reasonable, or that you’ll go broke long before you prove it isn’t.

[Oktas8]

The old rule (below) seems to say something similar. That being the case, I see this rule change as a tidying up of the legalese rather than a new direction for the Fund.

However, I shall be talking to the Fund on Tuesday when the relevant officers are back at work. If this discussion is still active then, I'll let you know anything of interest.



(c) The Fund shall not be liable to make payments for monthly Benefits to a Member where the Member’s Class 1 Medical Certificate has been suspended either temporarily or permanently for any disability recognised by any repatriation or statutory authority whether treatment is currently being received or not, unless the disability has been specifically accepted by the Trustee.

[campdoag]

Gotta love flying this is not a rule change, MBF cover has always excluded work cover. What you've got to realise is if or when a work cover claim is denied or ceases MBF will pay out as usual. You just can't claim both at the same time.

With the MBF you are still entitled to other insurance income and to earn income in a non flying capacity. Other loss of license providers or insurers will offset against their cover but the MBF won't.

[Creampuff]

Not a rule change?

You reckon this: any disability recognised by any repatriation or statutory authority

is the same as this: is currently or would be entitled to receive any periodical or other payments (including, but not limited to workers’ compensation) under state or federal legislationWhat about an injury that results in a disability that’s not recognised by any repatriation or statutory authority but could result in a payment under a piece of legislation? There’s lots and lots of legislation out there.

I wouldn’t be paying thousands in annual premiums for insurance with either version in it, but I reckon the latter is far broader an ‘out’ than the former.

If it’s not going to make any make any practical difference, why is it being changed?

[Duck Pilot]

Thanks for the heads up, I will be voting a big NO!

[dirty deeds]

Jamair,

That's ridiculous! If you had a major injury causing permanent loss of licence you would either:

A) get a generous compensation payout from WorkCover or

B) be able to claim your MBF benefit.

Creampuff,

Yes of course it's a Rule change. That's the point, it's a Rule change to make it clearer. Statutory Authority always included Workcover as MBF does not double up on statutory authority entitlements. BUT if the statutory authority payment stops and the condition preventing meeting the Class 1 standards continues or is permanent the MBF cover continues.

[glekichi]

Also takes away the option of choosing to receive benefits under the MBF by electing not to claim under Workcover.

[JPMC]

I havent' posted here before, but this is important to all pilots and needs to be spread Aviation industry wide in Australia.



The MBF proposes a series of changes to its current rules put for vote by its members - you should have received an email. It's a simple yes or no vote to the whole lot. I ask that members do not disregard this as spam and read the proposed changes as it may seriously effect your insurance policy and potential pay out that you pay lots of premiums into for your protection.

Of note is the proposed change to rule 6(c):
(c) The Fund shall not be liable to make payment of Benefits to a Member where the Member’s Class 1 Medical Certificate has been Permanently Lost for any disability, in respect of which, in the Trustee’s reasonable opinion, the Member either is currently or would be entitled to receive any periodical or other payments (including, but not limited to workers’ compensation) under state or federal legislation, unless the disability has been specifically accepted by the Trustee.
The proposed change of note is underlined.

Essentially if the vote is passed, the MBF may refuse to pay your insurance pay out if it were deemed you "could" be entitled to, or are receiving another form of payout (workers compo etc) which caused your loss of Class 1 medical. I ask that members seriously consider this change as essentially if you lose your Class One to any work related injury, car crash (covered under CTP) or other accident that could be considered someone else's fault (and hence liability claimable) you may not receive any or all of your insurance pay out that you have paid many $thousands of premiums into!!

This is flawed policy and an easy out for the fund not to pay out your insurance!!! Insurance pay outs should be treated as mutually exclusive pay outs regardless of what other compensation you may receive - that's why you pay premiums!!

Unfortunately the Fund does not have a means for general discussion on these changes (another flaw!!), nor can you vote for individual rule changes (another flaw...). So unless someone from the Fund, or otherwise, can argue a decent counter to this or explain that my interpretation is wrong, I'll be voting NO to all changes and I urge other members to consider this seriously and to spread this discussion on other forums.

[gottaloveflying]

Campdoag: The old rule did seem to apply but only in some cases. The new one seems to be a catch all.

Dirty Deeds: Jamair's example hits the nail on the head, if it's an injury that leaves you fully capable of normal work but without a class 1 medical I don't think WorkCover's payout would be all that generous, especially compared with what we're paying for with the fund.

I don't mind the fact the fund is trying to save a bit of money by getting you to go to workcover first, but they don't seem to take into account that WorkCover will be giving you much much less than what you'd be entitled too from the fund. Could leave you high and dry when you need it most.

[Air Ace]

JPMC “I havent' posted here before,….” Understandable since you only registered yesterday.

So you think it is reasonable to double or triple dip?

You want your loss of license insurance to pay out, which is logical since you paid the premium.

But you also want workers compensation to pay out, an expense to the entire industry and you also want the Australian tax payer to possibly pay out in the form of disability insurance/pension, with none of those payments being means tested and regardless of your LOL insurance payout?

Does the proposed rule change not say that one should expire all other avenues, before LOL insurance pays out? Should the proposed rule change not provide a guarantee the LOL insurance will pay out, after taking into account other payments and benefits received?

[JPMC]

Second ever post (on this site)...... I know, how dare I!!


Air Ace, In your perceived viewpoint yes happy to double dip, if I'm simply receiving my insurance I've paid premiums for. For mine however, it's not double dipping if you're receiving money from a policy you've paid for as you said.


Compensation and pensions from statutory authorities are separate issues to a privately funded insurance policy. As a side point, compensations and pensions are two separate ideologies. One is a pay out for an impairment or imposition, the other is a supported income. And both are entitlements to those who satisfy their requirements regardless of any private insurance.

[dirty deeds]

You guys need to get on the phone and talk to someone at the MBF, they will explain these changes in detail and not with a bush law slant that seems to be thrown around here like gospel truth!!

Either claim workcover and defer MBF payments or claim MBF payments. Simple!

Has been like this for years!!!!

Rule changes simply spell this out now!

Air Ace, nice post, people want their cake and want to eat it too. This is why I have a two year waiting period on my income protection so my MBF payments don't offset my income protection payments. :ugh:

[ga_trojan]

Either claim workcover and defer MBF payments or claim MBF payments. Simple!

No it is not. This is what the amendment says:

in respect of which, in the Trustee’s reasonable opinion, the Member either is currently or would be entitled to receive any periodical or other payments (including, but not limited to workers’ compensation) under state or federal legislation,

It does not say you have the option it says in the opinion of the trustee if you are able make a claim elsewhere the MBF does not have to pay out.

Are they saying you are required to exhaust ALL avenues then they pay out in full?

I am assuming that is what is intended but that is not what it says!!:ok:

[Snakecharma]

There will be arguments galore about whether people should or should not "double dip" as some seem to think it is, however in my mind the issue is whether or not I am going to be stuck in the middle with no money and no income while everything gets sorted out. The biggest payment in the world is not all that helpful if it comes a year after you have had to sell your home in a fire sale and taken the kids out of school because the MBF won't pay because in their opinion you are eligible for workers comp and the workers comp insurers argue that they are not liable.

In the meantime you have run out of sick leave, annual leave, long service leave and are now in leave without pay or worse still have been terminated.

I don't care if the MBF a wants to recover their funds from the workers comps insurer after the fact, BUT I would prefer someone, anyone, paid me in the interim while the lawyers duked it out.

Anyone with a family and a mortgage will be in a position where the loss of income very quickly becomes a critical situation.

I would prefer the rule change said something along the lines of "the MBF will provide cover for loss of licence in the first instance but retains the right to recover any funds paid from any insurance payments paid to the insured" or legalese words to that effect.

[Creampuff]

It is interesting to note the differing concepts of "double dipping".

Apparently, the first 'dip' is to claim an entitlement to which everyone - MBF member or not - in similar circumstances in the workplace is entitled, under statutory schemes.

When you say the "taxpayer" pays for this first 'dip', you're right. But you seem to be overlooking the fact that the "taxpayer" includes pilots who have been paying income tax, GST, fuel excise, stamp duty and a variety of other taxes during his or her working life, like the rest of the working population. (It's an interesting recent phenomenon in Australia: Everyone seems to have been sleep-walked into believing that they are not entitled to anything in return for the hundreds of billions paid by them in tax each year.)

Apparently, the second 'dip' is to claim from the MBF.

But wait a moment: The MBF member has been paying extra thousands in premiums to the MBF, which premiums were not being paid by the general workforce.

I am therefore not surprised that MBF members might expect to be entitled to get something more than what the general workforce is entitled to, under statutory schemes, in return for the premiums MBF members but not members of general workforce have been paying.

I anticipate that this will all resolve to two, diametrically-opposed, understandings of what the MBF is actually for. One side will say that the intention of scheme was always, and continues to be, to cover the member to the extent, and only to the extent, if any, that the statutory schemes do not adequately compensate the member for the circumstances. The other side will say that a member is entitled to benefits under both, or at least to have a choice.

Let's assume that the first understanding is the correct one. If I were an MBF member, I'd be saying that's great, but the rule should therefore provide that I'm not entitled to compensation from the MBF if, and only if, I am already receiving, under a statutory scheme, the amount of compensation I would otherwise have been entitled to receive from the MBF for the specific, pilot-career related consequences of the circumstances.

But that's not what the current rule or proposed amended rule says (which is why I wouldn't be paying thousands in premiums under either version).

The way I read it, if I could be entitled to any compensation under any statutory scheme, the MBF can choose not to pay me anything. Therefore, the onus would be on me to prove a negative: that is, that I am not entitled to receive anything in the circumstances under any statutory scheme. A very difficult thing to prove as a matter of practicality, especially noting that, by definition, the amount of dollars in my sky rocket may be quickly drying up.

Further, and even assuming I'm undoubtedly entitled to compensation under a statutory scheme, the rule does not require an equivalence of the amount of compensation under the statutory scheme compared with what would otherwise be payable by the MBF. If any statutory scheme anywhere will pay me $10 a week compensation for my disability, the MBF does not have to pay me anything at all. I'm perfectly fit to push a pen behind a desk, and therefore the fact that my dream of flying for a career until retirement is over is - well - too bad too sad: enjoy the $10 a week from the statutory scheme.

Dirty Deeds said:Creampuff,

Yes of course it's a Rule change. That's the point, it's a Rule change to make it clearer.Exquisitely circular: A change that makes no difference.

That might be the intention, but on any sensible reading of the current rule and the proposed amended rule, the latter produces a substantially different outcome to the former.

And if it comes to an argument, in a Court, about what each version of the rule means, everyone's strong opinions about what may have been intended will be interesting but irrelevant.

[dirty deeds]

ga_trojan

Quote:
in respect of which, in the Trustee’s reasonable opinion, the Member either is currently or would be entitled to receive any periodical or other payments (including, but not limited to workers’ compensation) under state or federal legislation,


Member is either currently: defer your MBF payments and receive payments from elsewhere.

My understanding is if you are injured at work, you would be on sick leave, therefore during this process you are entitled to workers compensation (WC).


Or would be entitled to: If you are not entitled to WC, you should receive MBF payments.



And Creampuff, I can assure you that the courts will look at the intent of the rule, that's their job, to apply intent!!! By the way, are you an MBF member, because in your post you state, "If I were an MBF member"?

Have a look at each states workers compensation payments schedules, they all differ, but most pay up to a maximum % on your weekly calculated earnings.

Once again, defer your MBF payments as the rules allow and claim workers compensation/other. If you are not injured at work or not entitled to WC, claim the MBF.

[Snakecharma]

BUT will the MBF top up work cover payments? Because most airline pilot salaries are far in excess of average weekly earnings it is conceivable that the work cover payments will be significantly less than what you would normally earn.

IF the rule change means little, as some would have us believe, why not sit on it for a while and get the concerns of members resolved.

As for the double dipping argument - I am with creampuff, a pilot member of the MBF should be able to access everything the general population is entitled to as a result of paying nearly half of their wages as taxes, paying for insurance policies through superannuation (which I assume would be roped into the exclusion clause) plus any benefit from the MBF.

To exclude a benefit from the MBF because you are getting some other sort of payout is just like means testing or the argument from the labor party that everyone who earns more than 50 grand is rich and can afford to pay for everyone else.

If I am in a position where I am likely to need to claim on the MBF then it has well and truly gone to **** in my life and I want as much support as I can possibly get. Having one of my support pillars pull the plug isn't something I would want to happen

[Creampuff]

And Creampuff, I can assure you that the courts will look at the intent of the rule, that's their job, to apply intent!!!And to ascertain the intent, the Court will interpret the words of the rule, in context. To do that, the Court will not invite individual members to say what they earnestly hope the words to mean. This thread demonstrates that that way lies madness. By the way, are you an MBF member, because in your post you state, "If I were an MBF member"?No I'm not a member.

But my membership or otherwise of the MBF is, like various individual MBF member's earnest hopes as to what a rule might mean, completely irrelevant to what a rule does mean as a matter of law.

(Snake: The proceeds of other private insurance policies are probably not covered by the exclusion, because those proceeds are probably not paid under legislation. But, like all of these things, it's best to ask and get definitive answers before a life changing event that makes the answers important.)

[dirty deeds]

Creampuff


Quote:
And Creampuff, I can assure you that the courts will look at the intent of the rule, that's their job, to apply intent!!!
And to ascertain the intent, the Court will interpret the words of the rule, in context. To do that, the Court will not invite individual members to say what they earnestly hope the words to mean. This thread demonstrates that that way lies madness.

Context exactly, and they will call to stand those that wrote the rule to explain to the individual and the court its true meaning. Thanks for partly explaining the court proceeding!

Quote:
By the way, are you an MBF member, because in your post you state, "If I were an MBF member"?
No I'm not a member.

But my membership or otherwise of the MBF is, like various individual MBF member's earnest hopes as to what a rule might mean, completely irrelevant to what a rule does mean as a matter of law.

Why the interest in something you have no vested interest in? What is your earnest hopes of what a rule may or may not be? Do you argue the virtues or rules of Workcover legislation or a random AAMI insurance policy with such enthusiasm on a public forum?


(Snake: The proceeds of other private insurance policies are probably not covered by the exclusion, because those proceeds are probably not paid under legislation. But, like all of these things, it's best to ask and get definitive answers before a life changing event that makes the answers important.)

And your last point is the most pertinent, get the definitive answers by picking up the phone and calling the MBF to get answers that affect those life changing events.

It's not the MBF that's creates the offsets guys, it's the workcover and insurance policies that do.

[Creampuff]

Context exactly, and they will call to stand those that wrote the rule to explain to the individual and the court its true meaning.No. The Court won't do that.

The Court will accept authority-based submissions as to the proper interpretation of the words, in context, and the Court will decide and explain to the parties what the words mean as a matter of law.Why the interest in something you have no vested interest in?My religion requires me to.It's not the MBF that's creates the offsets guys, it's the workcover and insurance policies that do.But that doesn't prevent the MBF from paying compensation. It's the other way around.

I'd suggest that MBF members first need to get their head around what the current rule means and how it's administered by the MBF. I anticipate many members may be in for a light-bulb moment.

[dirty deeds]

Creampuff,

Yes, authority based submissions from the people who wrote the rule, exactly. Once again thanks for pointing this out. Your responses are really helpful and provide excellent input to help people understand the process of the court.

Maybe we should start another thread, torts and common law...lol!

Once again you are absolutely 100% correct, it doesn't prevent the MBF from paying compensation, just remember if it does, any other stauatory authority will offset their payments. I cannot remember, but maybe this hadn't been pointed out yet, sorry if I forgot to.

Members do need to get their head around these rule changes, and thank you for proving me the opportunity to do so. It's been a good debate and your inputs to the discussion have been helpful in proving the basis to explain just one of these rule changes.

[Creampuff]

So if a rule said:Members must not apply postage stamps upside down on envelopes.and the people who wrote that rule submitted to the Court that what the rule means is:The fund may be expended on lollies. do you reckon the Court would say: "Well okay then. The rule means the fund may be expended on lollies."

A rule means what it says, not what the people who wrote it think it means.

[dirty deeds]

Creampuff

Thanks for the response, your providing excellent examples of what we are trying to convey:

Stamps

Member is either currently: defer your MBF payments and receive payments from elsewhere.

My understanding is if you are injured at work, you would be on sick leave, therefore during this process you are entitled to workers compensation (WC).

Lollies

Or would be entitled to: If you are not entitled to WC, you should receive MBF payments.

You are 100% correct, what it says and what it means!

[JPMC]

Dirty Deeds:
Stamps

Member is either currently: defer your MBF payments and receive payments from elsewhere.


It reads defer or "exclude" - lets not leave out that part. It is not the Member who decides to defer (or exclude) it is the Fund. Herein lies the issue, it should be up to the member whether to defer payments or take a disability payment from their private funded policy (MBF) regardless of what arrangements they are on with WC - also worth noting that it's not only WC that constitutes "periodical or other payments."


Yes, the current rules has the capacity to exclude payments in similar circumstance - but the new rule seems to attempt to make this more prescriptive or available to the Trustees. If not, then why bother with the rule change? Perhaps this is the real question at play.

[gottaloveflying]

Had a conversation with the MBF, the gist of it:

-current rule doesn't allow the fund to force a member to claim on work cover (or TAC etc)
-new rule has changed that so they can, or at least withhold payments if they think you should be
-both the current and previous rules mean that if receiving WorkCover periodical payments you will NOT receive MBF payments. Once work cover payments stop you can claim MBF.
-if on a permanent disability leading to loss of licence a WorkCover/TAC etc payout was "unsatisfactory" you could then claim from the MBF. Not sure who's definition on satisfactory is used.
-Whilst receiving payments from WorkCover/TAC/etc the MBF will NOT top up payments to bring in level with what you would receive from the MBF even though they acknowledged it would be significantly less.

Now I might just be too cynical after dealing with insurance companies but this seems to leave the fate of your payouts on good faith rather than clear rules?

[Capt Hollywood]

In QLD the maximum that Workers Comp will payout is 85% of your NWE (Normal Weekly Earnings). With a pregnant wife, two kids and a mortgage, I don't want 85% of my NWE, I NEED 100% of my NWE!

As a helicopter pilot it's basically impossible to obtain affordable income insurance other than the MBF fund. That, along with the fact that it is an MBF fund run by pilots and not an insurance product, is the reason I took out the MBF coverage.

Like a lot of people these days, financially speaking we run pretty close the wire. If I have an accident at work tomorrow and my income drops to 85% of my NWE, I'm going to have to sell my house. Whereas if I was able to claim the temporary benefits from my MBF policy, that aren't capped at a percentage of my income, then I can keep my house and my kids stay in Kindy. It's that simple for me!

Or am I missing something here?

[Oakape]

6c) The Fund shall not be liable to make payment of Benefits to a Member where the Member’s Class 1 Medical Certificate has been suspended or Permanently Lost for any disability in respect of which, in the Trustee’s reasonable opinion, the Member either is currently or would be entitled to receive any periodical or other payments (including, but not limited to workers’ compensation) under state or federal legislation, unless the disability has been specifically accepted by the Trustee

So if you receive any payment the fund doesn't have to pay. Even if the payment is say, 10%, you won't get any from the MBF, as 10% would constitute any payment.

Perhaps it could be changed to say that the fund will only pay the extra above what other entities are paying, up to a total of 100% of current earnings. That would stop double dipping & still be fair on pilots trying to survive financially.

[22k]

I was about to push the button on joining the fund up until a few days ago. I was attracted to it because it appeared to be heavily favoured towards paying one out in the unfortunate event that you needed it and wouldn't be trying to screw you out of your payment (ala an insurance company). The amount was good, tailored for pilots and run by pilots this made a really attractive safety net. Until now.

This one seemingly small rule change is a red flag in my opinion. It signals the intent of the trustees to change what this fund was all about and instead start to focus on penny pinching and screwing it's members out of payments that they deserve.

Alas ANOTHER business in Australia is getting greedy and will not be getting my business as a result of playing Mr Scrooge. Unless someone can show me otherwise that is.

And for the numptys throwing the "double dippling" guilt trip around, get a grip! We pay a ****load of tax and that covers our work cover (that we should be entitled to just like everyone else is), you pay a small fortune to be covered by the MBF, out of your own pocket, for a policy that advertises to keep you going in a time of need. You're not doubling dipping, you're receiving what you're bloody well entitled to. I just don't get why people lie down and get kicked whilst screaming "give me more!" these days. The government love you lot.

Enough from me.

[Humbly Reserved]

THE CHOICE IS CLEAR VOTE NO.

[clear to land]

NO from me-insurance changes never benefit the insured!

[airpilot1961]

Dear MBF Members,

The MBF Board of Directors, would like to take the opportunity to clarify a few outstanding issues in regards to the ongoing Rules Voting, specifically drawing attention to Rule 6c discussed throughout this thread.

Rule 6c proposed changes are a clarification of the existing rule only, which currently allows the Trustee not to make payments to members if their Class 1 has been suspended temporarily, or cancelled permanently where members are receiving payments for any disability recognised by any repatriation or statutory authority. WorkCover currently falls into this category. Hence the proposed rule change is solely a clarification of the existing rule to make it clearer to members. The treatment of WorkCover benefits is no different in the new or old Rules.

This does not mean that you are ineligible to claim your benefits, you could receive 12 months from WorkCover and there would be nothing preventing you from receiving your MBF benefits for the FULL two years afterward. If the condition were to be permanent, after the waiting period, you could make a claim for your Capital lump sum payment (which has been preserved by taking WorkCover payments). Your Capital payment is then free of tax.

The advantage of 'mutual benefit' is that we are driven by rules designed to look after YOU the member rather than profits or returns to shareholders. The Trustee Board is comprised of pilots who understand the needs of pilots but exercise a rigorous process of assessment to ensure all statutory entitlements are taken into account. This governance is why the MBF is in such a good position to support those pilot members who need our help each month, none of whom would be affected by this change.

The suggestion that the MBF could refuse a payment based on your assertion is extreme. It seems predicated on an assumption that there is something to be gained by refusing claims without good reason. Remember, the Board are all members (looking for the same protections as you) and volunteer their time and efforts specifically to help provide a robust Fund that will look after all of us as well as the next generation of pilots.

It’s not accurate to say that this constitutes a major shift. It was and will remain the case that: were you to work whilst receiving MBF benefits that there would be no reduction in monthly benefits. If your employer pays salary continuance, you have a farm or work part time, none of that is taken into account. During this time, it’s not uncommon for members to actually receive much more income than they would by flying alone.

Every month the Board exercises its discretion in the interests of the members. Judgements are made about hardship and early payments on a regular basis. Where the Board is satisfied of the genuine nature of a claimant, everything is done to assist the Member.

We encourage you to write your concerns to the Board so that it can be discussed formally. Whilst this process is well and truly under way, rules can change any time and this can come from the membership. Every email that comes to the Board is read to the Board and discussed. The Board is very mindful that the MBF is in a competitive space and it is with this in mind that the product has been massively enhanced over the past few years (based on an exhaustive consultation with the membership).

If you have any further questions, we urge you to speak directly with our Chairman, David Harget. Please call 03 9928 4500 or email [email protected] and the MBF staff will put you in contact with him.

[Jamair]

I have contacted the Fund with my concerns and herein the reply:
Dear Mark,

In regards to your question below about the rule change currently open for voting.

Rule 6c proposed changes are a clarification of the existing rule only, which currently allows the Trustee not to make payments to members if their Class 1 has been suspended temporarily, or cancelled permanently where members are receiving payments for any disability recognised by any repatriation or statutory authority. WorkCover currently falls into this category. Hence the proposed rule change is solely a clarification of the existing rule to make it clearer to members. The treatment of WorkCover benefits is no different in the new or old Rules.

This does not mean that you are ineligible to claim your benefits, you could receive 12 months from WorkCover and there would be nothing preventing you from receiving your MBF benefits for the FULL two years afterward. If the condition were to be permanent, after the waiting period, you could make a claim for your Capital lump sum payment (which has been preserved by taking WorkCover payments). Your Capital payment is then free of tax.

I trust this clears up the “changes” to the rule.

Any other questions please contact the office.

So on that basis the rule change is OK for me. Jeezuz I hate legalese jargonic BS.......

[Creampuff]

Let me fix that response for you:In regards to your question below about the rule change currently open for voting.

Rule 6c proposed changes are intended by the Trustee to be a clarification of the existing rule only, which the Trustee believes currently allows the Trustee not to make payments to members if their Class 1 has been suspended temporarily, or cancelled permanently where members are receiving payments, or could be entitled to receive any payments, for any disability recognised by any repatriation or statutory authority. WorkCover currently falls into this category. Hence the proposed rule change is intended by the Trustee to be solely a clarification of the existing rule to make it clearer to members how the Trustee interprets the rule. The treatment of WorkCover benefits is no different in the new or old Rules. The Trustee does not believe that the phrase “any periodical or other payments (including, but not limited to workers’ compensation) under state or federal legislation” results in a broader exclusion than the phrase “any disability recognised by any repatriation or statutory authority”.

This does not mean that you are ineligible to claim your benefits, you could receive 12 months from WorkCover and there would be nothing preventing you from receiving your MBF benefits for the FULL two years afterward. However, if you choose not to pursue a WorkCover claim and the Trustee considers that you would entitled to WorkCover if you did, the Trustee can choose to give you nothing during the period the Trustee considers WorkCover would have been payable to you. If the condition were to be permanent, after the waiting period, you could make a claim for your Capital lump sum payment (which has been preserved by taking WorkCover payments). Your Capital payment is then free of tax. But of course, as with both versions of the rule, making a claim is not the same as the Trustee accepting the claim.

I trust this clears up the “changes” to the rule.

[Shaft135]

C Puff:

Seems to me that you are only trying to stir up trouble in something you are not involved in, "not being a member." As you admit too

One would ask why? are you in some other organisation.

[Creampuff]

As I said: My religion requires me to (or is that "too"?).

Are you able to point out any errors in any of my posts, or any breach by me of forum rules?

I didn't start this thread, and it ain't private.

[BPA]

The problem I see is there may already be a large number of 'no' votes already submitted, due to lack of clarity that was initially provided.

[Oktas8]

I rang the MBF office, but the staff who could talk to me about these changes were unavailable. The pleasant lady took my details and said they'd return my call next working day.

They didn't.

I voted no.

[Captahab]

The MBF policy and treatment of the existing Rule 6 (c) has always used an important principle: Members who can claim other statutory entitlements should do so before they claim from MBF. This includes the workers compensation schemes (WorkCover) that apply in each state. In the new Rule 6 (c) WorkCover is specifically named, but the principle is the same: MBF will not pay monthly benefits whilst a member is entitled to receive WorkCover payments.

Above is an extract from the email.

My concern is with the "entitled" to receive bit, that doesn't mean you are receiving anything from Workcover if they dispute the issue and hold off any payment as was the case in one situation that I am aware of.

[paul makin]

I may be too late to be making this comment as I am unsure as to whether or not the vote has yet been taken. As I am time expired, I no longer receive communications from AAPMBF. I apologise for the lateness of my warning.


In my view the bigger elephant in the room is the treatment of Rule 1 (a) current v 1 (b) proposed.


To say that "the concept of being downgraded is redundant as a Class 1 with restrictions is a still a class 1 medical certificate" is contextually misleading.


A pilot employed in single pilot operations receiving an "as or with co-pilot" restriction on his class one medical certificate is FINISHED from a piloting point of view. He cannot continue in his current position and the likelihood of him gaining employment in a multi crew environment is about as likely as Phar Lap winning another race. His Class 1 (restricted), is not worth a pinch of pig droppings to him/her. If that is not being downgraded within the original intent of the Rules, I will do the proverbial bum barring in Bourke street"


The rule in respect of "downgrading" was written long before the concept of "Class 1 with restrictions" was conceived, you either held a class 1 or not. From a distant and hazy memory, you were legally able to operate as a co-pilot on another grade of medical, (I think a Class 2)
It was the intent of the founders of the Fund that if you were unfortunate enough to lose your class one medical, but still be able to exercise reduced privileges on another class of medical, in the event that your employer, "downgraded" your salary, you were entitled to compensation from MBF.
Subsequently CASA, has introduced a "new" concept (as or with co-pilot) which allows an RPT Captain to retain his position , conditionally.


Although they have long been aware of this concept and the anomaly it raises, the Board of AAPMBF has chosen to do nothing to address the situation and, to apply the founders original intent.


The proposed rule change reinforces a current view rather than the original intent, and on that basis the comments accompanying the proposed rule changes, are, in my view, misleading.


Any concerns the Board may have regarding possible double dipping, are fallacious, as the current Rule requires that earning ability be downgraded. A Captain keeping his command pay would not be entitled. A Captain downgraded to F/O and paid accordingly, would be entitled.