Didn’t anyone ever tell their return-to-work coordinator that workplace injuries mess with your mind? And we’re not just talking about the psychological health of workers following a traumatic event in the workplace.

Sometimes, the pressure of a tricky return-to-work coordinator and a management team who focus solely on the negative aspects of “compo” can keep you awake at night and potentially diminish your work performance.

Several years ago, I encountered the Return-to-Work Coordinator from Hades. I had just started work in a new company, a large aged-care agency. My position was area manager and I had responsibility for a diverse range of support services provided from fixed sites as well as in clients’ homes. Facing the daunting prospect of two current major WorkCover claims in a budget with a revenue base of just less than $1 million presented an enormous challenge. These claims represented a huge fifteen per cent cost to the budget and the claims had been longstanding. As the manager with ultimate responsibility, it was clear that the claims needed to be settled quickly and, in the absence of any real progress, I needed to find a way forward.

These present difficulties had been aggravated by the company deciding some time ago not to replace the return-to-work coordinator when she went on extended leave. They wanted to save money. In the meantime, responsibility for such tasks was left to the already under-resourced Human Resources Department leaving expert return-to-work support virtually non-existent. It is not surprising in these circumstances that the WorkCover applicants’ claims had stalled. It is also not unexpected that the applicants’ immediate supervisors struggled to make progress with their claims. Eventually, the company recognised this and proceeded to recruit a Return-To-Work Coordinator.

My immediate concern was to get things back on track for one of the WorkCover applicants in my area. An aged care worker, Lance, had a chronic back injury. His job required heavy pushing and pulling to support elderly clients with limited physical abilities in their everyday actions. Such tasks very often involved twisting the spine.

Lance was a young man and was totally frustrated with being off work and with no real plans to help him return to work. He had been provided with support from the Employee Assistance Program. This purpose of this program is to help staff deal with problems that might adversely impact their work performance, health and well-being. However, the program was provided in the absence of other organisational supports.

Although Lance was frustrated he seemed reasonable. He was keen to work through rehabilitation to overcome his injury and return-to-work.

Lance and his supervisor were struggling to work co-operatively with Dirk, the Return-To-Work Coordinator. Dirk seemed to be very process-focused and he didn’t seem to be interested in connecting with claimants as people. His boss was a senior manager in the company and Dirk was keen to snag a good reputation. This meant Dirk talked about the cost of WorkCover claims to the company as if staff injuries were of no consequence. His role was to shift major WorkCover claims off the company’s books. Even though Dirk was new to the job, he was unwilling to listen to anyone other than the drum of his newly developed return-to-work procedure.

Dirk further exacerbated Lance’s existing frustration by:

• Asking Lance to move heavy objects as a way of testing the extent of his injury; but, in effect, coercing and bullying Lance to exceed his capabilities;
• Not advising Lance of his rights and the company’s obligations;
• Pressuring Lance by threatening to not replacing his position on the staff roster, thus exposing Lance’s colleagues to greater potential for injury;
• Boasting of his superior knowledge and capacities but doing little to assist in the development of a return-to-work-plan;
• Telephoning Lance at home to receive progress reports despite repeated requests that he discuss these with the return-to-work team before any calls were made; and
• Although the company gives staff the choice of their own or their doctor, Dirk made it so hard that Lance’s doctor refused to take on his case.

Dirk’s harassment led Lance to report his case to his Designated Work Group representative. This almost resulted in WorkCover being called in to investigate the case.

Working alongside his supervisor, I got to know Lance so that his case could be discussed in some depth. We needed to be able to speak in a clear and honest way. Lance needed to know that it was unlikely that he would return to his old position so we needed to examine the options available to us. We looked at what work options were possible within the company given the physical limitations placed on him by his injury. We also explored Lance’s vocational aspirations and his plans for the future.

After exploring a range of work options and having had the opportunity to experience a range of roles, Lance expressed interest in the position of house supervisor. It combined much of his previous knowledge with some new challenges. He was also aware that training and an internal network was available to assist people in these positions.

With some help before and after the selection process, Lance was promoted to a house supervisor position within the company, a position that did not require manual handling. Even though the process still used merit-based principles, the position was only advertised internally. And staff were generally aware that Lance was applying for the job. So the selection process was more like a redeployment process.

Even though we managed to achieve a positive return-to-work result for Lance, Dirk’s lack of leadership and people skills made his own job harder. He wasn’t involved in the key discussions that made a difference to Lance, effectively sidelining him from the process. As a new employee, he had a lot to learn and he had just missed the opportunity to learn how things might work in this new company.

The take-home learning from this experience was:

• Frustration can quickly build for injured staff if little action is taken to assist the worker to return to work.
• Both employees and employers have rights and responsibilities within the return-to-work system. Other avenues of remedial action are available for both parties to ensure that the process is carried out in the way legislation demands.
• It’s important Employee Assistance Programs are complemented by other supports through Human Resources and management.
• Depending on the policies of particular companies, redeployment can be considered an option for placing an injured worker back into the workforce.
• The well-being of injured staff needs to be paramount in working towards their recovery.  This can be best be achieved by organisations using a partnership approach.