The Pacific Film and Television Corporation (PFTC), a government owned enterprise with an independent CEO and a Board that reports to the Queensland Minister for Arts, has a history of upheld bullying allegations and a chequered reputation.

Recently, several senior PFTC figures have resigned amidst allegations of inappropriate travel expenditure. In 2007, a parliamentary inquiry was launched to determine whether the then Arts Minister had misled parliament regarding an instance of bullying and assault at the PFTC that prompted a police investigation. To top it all off, the PFTC has come in for significant industry criticism, with the Brisbane Courier mail reporting in 2008 that Oscar winner Peter Frampton described it as “the worst film organisation he had encountered in 45 years in the industry.”

Sounds like a difficult place to work, doesn’t it?

According to Eliot Rifkin, who was employed at the PFTC for four years – as an IT technical support officer, then as Senior IT Officer and finally as Applications Developer – it most certainly was. He and his doctor believe that his experiences at the PFTC exacerbated his reactive arthritis and led to his developing high blood pressure. However Mr Rifkin’s stress claim was recently denied by WorkCover Queensland. Why?

Unfortunately for Mr Rifkin, not every injury incurred in the workplace is compensable, even if it is caused primarily by workplace factors. In fact, within most Australian jurisdictions (including Queensland) psychiatric or psychological disorders arising out of “reasonable management actions” are explicitly non-compensable.

“Reasonable management actions” may include transferring, demoting, disciplining and dismissing employees, as well as refusing leave, and denying promotions. Often, such decisions are reasonable, even unavoidable, despite the fact that they may cause distress. It might be very depressing to lose your job if your performance has been poor, for example, but it doesn’t necessarily follow that your ex-employer should compensate you for it.

However, when such “management actions” occur in an organisation with a workplace culture known publicly to be very poor – a culture characterised by bullying, suspicion, inconsistent and unrealistic expectations, gossip and fear – it starts to seem as though both the management actions and the compensation legislation are more unreasonable than reasonable. Negative workplace cultures cause stress, and who is responsible for culture if not management? Surely, the organisation should be culpable.

Re-enter Eliot Rifkin, and the PFTC.

Mr Rifkin asserts that during his time at PFTC:

• Managers were “out to get” other managers, and would use subordinate employees to do so;
• If you “rocked the boat” in any way you were ostracised;
• Employees received no acknowledgement for working the long hours expected of them;
• Feedback was not provided promptly or directly – for example, six months after confirming with management that his work on a project had been adequate, Mr Rifkin heard rumours that management were saying he had underperformed;
• Management undermined staff and doubted that staff had the skills to perform tasks required of them, while from Eliot’s perspective management lacked the qualifications to makes such assessments;
• There was inconsistency about what was and wasn’t allowed – for example, sometimes flexible work practices were encouraged while other times employees were reprimanded for things like working from home, or denied the flexibility to do so; and
• Management intimidated staff – for example, at a one-on-one meeting to discuss HR issues, Mr Rifkin’s request to have a third person present was denied, and he was also advised to stop taking notes.

In this context, actions that WorkCover decided were “reasonable management actions” – such as management refusing to provide Mr Rifkin with an up-to-date position description, haggling over the cost of reimbursing a personal lap top destroyed when a wall shelf collapsed at work and inadvertently advertising Mr Rifkin’s job as vacant while he was still employed in it – start to look not only unreasonable, but also stress inducing.

WorkCover, however, did not consider workplace culture when assessing Mr Rifkin’s claim.

To quote the rejection letter which WorkCover sent Mr Rifkin:

“For the purposes of the Act, it is not necessary that management action is perfect or above criticism. Reasonable Management Action permits failings, deficiencies and flaws provided the management action was sound and fair based on reason.”

The Pacific Film and Television Commission is far from perfect and is certainly not above criticism (the curious can check out all the dirt on ScreenHub): nor is Queensland’s workers’ compensation legislation. We asked Mr Rifkin whether the latter is sound and fair based on reason. His appeal is pending.