RTW Matters ran an online poll asking ‘Are workplaces too harsh or too generous, or do they have a good balance?’

Kate Roylance, an occupational therapist and private consultant highly experienced in return to work coordination, was shocked that – at least in the poll’s earlier stages – responses swayed almost unanimously towards ‘too generous’.

“Perhaps I’ve been living on another planet?” Kate asked incredulously.

Kate’s experience has been quite the opposite. She feels that in her current workplace the work culture is “refreshing” for its non-adversarial approach, indicating that a fair portion of her work experience has been otherwise.

Kate makes it very clear that, when voting in the poll, she wasn’t “pointing the finger” at a specific employer. Her comments reflect a range of experiences with different organisations, large and small. She does admit that when it comes to workplaces that perform less than brilliantly, “I’ve seen some shockers, some absolute shockers.”

“The emotional impact on the injured worker is what I find the hardest to tolerate. So many workers say they’re treated like ‘the enemy’ once they’ve had an injury. They perceive – rightly or wrongly – that they’re punished for getting injured. I’ve seen it so many times now that I don’t think it’s always a false perception – there is this tendency for employers to blame workers for injuring themselves.”

Kate takes umbrage at the term, ‘injuring yourself’, let alone its having entered common vernacular.

“I don’t know too many workers who go to work with the intention of getting injured!” she said, arguing that this is what the term implies.

“Most of us are not self-harmers by nature. Joe Bloggs probably didn’t injure himself – chances are he got injured because something wasn’t safe.”

It’s an attitude based on blame that Kate has seen more often than she’s happy with.

“The worst example I’ve ever seen was a workplace in a rural community where a worker had a genuine and serious injury, caused by unsafe work practices. His immediate manager was never held accountable and the hazard was never addressed. Instead, this poor guy was blamed for ‘injuring himself’ and rumours were spread through his workplace and community. Life can be pretty tough in a small town when everybody thinks you’re trying to rip off one of the few employers in the district. This guy became so alienated and depressed that he contemplated suicide.”

“That’s the worst I’ve ever seen,” Kate said.

“I didn’t stay in that workplace obviously – I don’t want to be a part of that.”

The irony of such situations is that companies who behave so ruthlessly towards employees do so in a bid to penny pinch, and actually end up a whole lot more out of pocket.

“Employers seem to think that an adversarial approach will save them money, but it usually just brings on a common law claim,” said Kate.

“It’s not a coincidence that companies who treat their injured workers badly are the ones with the largest number of common law claims against them – many of them successful.”

“It’s false economy.”

This tendency to take an adversarial approach has almost become a “cultural norm”, said Kate, “which is a worry.”

She’s quick to add, however, that she isn’t advocating an overly generous approach to workplace injury either.

“I’ve seen employers go way too far the other way and that’s a big mistake.”

Kate observed one workplace where people on WorkCover were referred to as a “protected species”. An employee who had made a stress claim was “… just allowed to do whatever they liked. They left the business for an extended period with the company car and all the lurks and perks and nobody was game to say ‘hang on a minute, this is wrong, this is really silly’. There were no boundaries, no boundaries whatsoever.”

“That’s obviously not the way to go. I think treating people with human decency is a good thing but an injured worker has to have accountability - there has to be accountability on both sides.”

So where's the middle ground between an approach which is too adversarial and one which is too generous?

“I actually think the company I’m working for at moment has got that, which is lovely. The expectations are very clear from the outset. I think things are different in this organisation because it’s a self-insurer, so there’s greater control over the whole process”

She emphasised the importance of “expectation management”;

“Right up-front the injured worker and the employer need to be very clear about what is going to happen. I think often that’s not done well - the injured worker doesn’t know what to expect, the manager or supervisor doesn’t know what to expect. In the absence of good information, people can rely on all sorts of gossip and hearsay –this can set up false expectations that cause major headaches down the track”

Her current workplace has a policy of treating all injuries or illnesses equally from a return to work point of view.

“We manage all returns to work the same whether they’re work-related or not. So, at the moment for example, the people I have on return to work plans are coming back after motorbike or car accidents, medical conditions and surgery for non-work related issues as well as work-related stuff. Regardless of how their injury or illness came about, employees know that everyone is treated the same when they return to work – it takes away the stigma of being identified as somebody who has made a claim.”

“The other benefit is that early intervention is more common - whether it is or isn’t work related, early intervention kicks in regardless. I’ve noticed in lots of workplaces that by the time people stop arguing about whose ‘fault’ it is, you’ve missed the boat for early intervention – what a wasted opportunity.”

RTW Matters granted Ms Roylance three return to work wishes; here's what she wishes for:

1. A code of ethics for return to work coordinators.

“The absence of consistent standards really concerns me – we need a code of ethics to guide the behaviour and practices of RTW coordinators. So many times I’ve been asked to do things I know aren’t right - things that are unethical or even unlawful. As an OT, I’ve always been guided by my profession’s code of ethics so I’m really clear on what I will and won’t do - but not everybody has this benefit.”

“If you truly don’t know that people have basic rights and responsibilities in the return to work process, how can you be expected to do the job well? Even if you do know, unless you have some authority to change - or even challenge - bad practices, you might feel you have no choice but to go along with it if you want to keep your job.”

“There can be real pressure to conform to practices that are wrong from a legal or ethical point of view - but if you don’t know any different, if you’ve never worked anywhere else, if you’ve never seen a code of ethics, how would you know?”

2. Better training and minimum competency standards for RTW Coordinators

“There’s a lot more to RTW that ‘just doing the paperwork’ - but in some workplaces there’s an attitude that anybody can do it. I feel sorry for payroll or admin people who get RTW Coordinator thrown in on top of their normal job with little or no training - it’s a big ask for someone with no background in health, rehab or injury management.”

“For better RTW outcomes, we need better trained RTW Coordinators who meet minimum competency standards. I think injured workers deserve the assistance of somebody who truly knows what they’re doing - to give them the best chance of returning to work safely and sustainably.”

“The WorkSafe Victoria RTW Coordinators course is a great starting point and I’d strongly recommend it. There’s a lot to take on board in two days though and it can be overwhelming if you’re totally new to the role. I also worry that you can get the piece of paper without actually demonstrating any degree of competency.”

“The RTW Matters website is also a brilliant resource that I’d recommend to anybody involved with RTW, whether you’re new to the role or very experienced.”

3. No safety incentive schemes or personal bonuses based on lost time injuries.

Watch out next week for an article which gives more information on Ms Roylance’s views on this and details of the potential dangers!