Rhinestones, bulging lycra and chest hair aside, Elvis had some insights. In the realm of RTW and workers’ comp, supervisors with suspicious minds can do a lot of damage, even if their suspicious are justified.

When a worker’s injury or illness sets a supervisor’s internal suspicion-sirens blaring, the best approach is for them to take a deep breath and remember two key things:

1. Regardless of reservations they might harbour about the legitimacy of the claim, it is the supervisor’s role to provide the injured worker with sympathy and support. A little effort and empathy early on reduces hard work and headaches in the future.
2. Determining whether an injury or illness is work-related ISN’T a matter for common sense. Instead, it is influenced by complex medical, legal and political factors. There’s little to be gained in trying to second guess the system.

Why is suspicion so toxic for supervisors?

In many claims that result in poor outcomes and litigation, the initial conversation between the supervisor and the worker centres on blame and resentment. This conversation sets the tone for everything that follows.

While no one wants to be taken advantage of, the fact is that when a claim isn’t cut and dried Australian workers' compensation systems tend to err on the side of the worker, not the employer. This means that even justified suspicion can come back to bite later, if a borderline claim is accepted in the end.

Workers have an expectation that their supervisor is there to support them. If this expectation isn’t met following a workplace injury, relations can quickly sour. Although their intentions might be good, supervisors who broadcast their suspicion can inadvertently cost themselves a lot of time and hassle, and the organisation a lot of money.

Suspicion breeds suspicion, but successful RTW thrives on collaboration and trust.

So why are supervisors sometimes suspicious of injured workers?

There are many reasons why a supervisor might suspect that a worker’s injury or workers’ compensation claim is on the shonky side of genuine.

Some of these reasons are based on facts, for example:

• The off-work employee is difficult to contact, especially during work hours when they are “always sleeping and can’t be disturbed”; or
• When the employee does return the supervisors calls, there are strange noises in the background, suggesting that the place they’re calling from might not be a residence.

Other reasons for suspicion are more about perceptions than facts, for example:

• The supervisor doesn’t get on with the employee in question;
• The employee has a reputation as a slacker or a troublemaker; or
• The supervisor doesn’t think that the story about the injury adds up.

A supervisor’s level of trust might also be influenced by organisational pressures, for example:

• Previous involvement in a messy, drawn-out claim;
• A culture of scepticism towards workers’ comp claims;
• The supervisor just doesn’t have the time to deal with another hassle; or
• There is pressure to reduce LTI (lost time injury).

When a supervisor's suspicions are activated, it may be appropriate for the supervisor to speak to the RTW Coordinator about their suspicions and ask for support and advice in dealing with them.

The employee has the greatest influence over return to work outcomes, but supervisor input is not far behind. A lot hinges on the extent to which supervisors and employees are able to collaborate to achieve safe, speedy return to work. Collaboration is much more likely to occur in an environment of trust than one of suspicion. When in doubt, just ask Elvis!