Few workers’ compensation claims in SAPOL relate to so-called “stress” or psychological injuries. Those that do, however, can involve great costs, owing to the potential for extended periods off work for claimants. That means personal and financial costs to individuals, and their families, workplaces and service areas, as well as SAPOL.
To deal with “stress issues” sooner rather than later is to serve everyone’s best interests. But discussion within workplaces about what constitutes stressors is often lacking; and, when a member takes sick leave for psychological reasons, others often stand back so as not to create further distress.
SAPOL implemented an absence-and-injury-management policy, which gives some guidance as to departmental expectations.
Psychological claims can become highly emotive; and judgements of good and bad are often made. This does not help the resolution processes.
A cast of players might get involved when one submits a claim. So who features in it?
Managers/supervisors – SAPOL’s included, have a tendency to look at psychological injury as caused by an individual weakness rather than a systems problem.
Individuals – may be reluctant to accept that, where workplace distress is an issue, they have some part to play in the process of the development of the distress, and may see the process as a way to vindicate that which they experience.
Claims managers – see the need for process as the cure-all to their judgement of claims. Their process will usually include seeking “independent” medical advice in most stress claims – which takes time.
Rehabilitation consultants – return-to-work co-ordinators and the like tend to see psychological claims as caused by the interactions of individuals. It is easier to focus on the individual than to try to work out the involvement of the workplace structure, including management action – or inaction – as a cause. This focus will see mediation or change of location as the solutions into which energy is directed.
Employee Assistance Section – Psychology and/or Welfare may be involved before or during a claims process. The role is initially one of offering support to the employee (including, in some cases, funding for external psychological assessment and treatment) and, when asked, to provide a consultancy role to management. Psychology may be required to do a return-to-work assessment. Welfare may be seen by some as too employee-focused. In effect, they (we) are employee-focused, but we would argue that we do operate in the real world (although others would disagree).
Preventions – they will review physical injury claim causes but not psychological injury causes.
Unions – in SAPOL, both the main unions provide support to members when they have a psychological injury relative to the workplace. In PASA, most members are referred to external legal people.
Payroll – the poor payroll staff will try to work out what to pay the employee and, during the assessment phase, this may be completely chaotic. The paper trail is very important because, if the claim is not determined, the member will need an additional set of paperwork (sick leave, leave bank, annual leave etc) to ensure he or she gets paid. When the claim is accepted, the Payroll staff will have to reverse it all.
Most often missing is an objective review of what happened to get to a point at which a claim is submitted. Now, the notion of an objective review will nearly always be invoked when physical injury occurs, but rarely when psychological injury occurs. Despite legislation claiming that the current scheme is a no-fault scheme, “stress” claims invariably end up in some form of “did-didn’t” argument. This can often filter through to the way the claim is managed by the parties involved.
The claims manager is, however, going to make a determination that will have a significant impact. While claim managers might not see themselves as the “judge”, it is what they initially are.
How they judge is, of course, determined by their existing mindsets. That is, they are not a neutral or independent party. They may be employee-focused or management-focused; fair, caring, pragmatic – or not; or they may have the Wisdom of Solomon but, at some point, they will make a claim determination as the judge.
They will call for “independent medical advice”, and the solicitor acting for the member will call for “independent medical advice”, which might provide no clarity to the matter. But, needless to say, claims managers usually decide that their “independent advice” is better than the other and determine the claim on that. (History does tell us that the medico who has been treating the employee is the one with the most valid view and more likely to be accepted by the appeal arbiter).
Whether a claim is accepted or rejected, it is likely that one side or the other will feel aggrieved, vindicated, blamed, heartened or angered by the process, or a combination of all or some.
Often, one or both sides will seek to ensure the claim determination goes its way, and will go to the legal experts before, during or after the determination just to ensure it has good legal precedent. Perhaps not surprisingly, both sides might end up with directly opposite good legal advice.
Underlying the determination is the knowledge that rarely does an alleged stress claim not win approval. It might take two years of brawling (very helpful to the treatment process) but most of them get up and the costs become significant.
The key to saving pain is in the reasoned review of the true causes. It is never as simple as: “They overwork me”, or “They are in the wrong job”. Both parties can depersonalize any review by seeing the other as “they” and determining that, because I am a good person, the other must be bad.
The determination of a claim might provide some realization that something needs to change at the workplace. If the management team and the worker/s involved can agree that change is needed, the seed of resolution can take root.
This is where the real work must be done if the pain is to be quickly resolved for all. Rarely will either of the parties see the events with independent eyes. Historically, we have all seen sense in the “injured party” going off for assessment and some intervention therapy, but rarely is that same assessment and intervention sought for the workplace structure. It is presumed that the workplace design and function is not an issue.
Even when some in the management team might acknowledge the causal work issues involved, sooner or later a manager says (perhaps because of the inability to create real change) something akin to: “That’s the way it is and, if they can’t stand the heat, perhaps they need to look for another work place.”
Many are so worn out that they move on and find a positive workplace elsewhere. For Rehab workers, it is easier to move the worker on than deal with the original workplace, so energy goes that way. This is immediately seen as reinforcing the manager’s belief that “it was just an individual thing because, to get my brownie points, my workplace must be faultless”, and so it remains until the next weak individual falls over.
Each workplace comes with competing needs and interests. Balancing fiscal needs with human needs is never easy. Some managers are brilliant at it, but still won’t prevent or eliminate the potential for psychological injuries. Rather, they will minimize the likelihood and, when injuries do occur, minimize the pain and work to identify the true causes and deal with them for the good of all.
Royal commission report worth reading
A test for serving members only. Where does the heading The Integrity Factor as a Member of SAPOL come from?
A hint? One can find it with a paper titled The Integrity Factor in Leading and Managing or Maintaining a Professional Workplace.
On a recent exploration of the Intranet, I came upon these headings in the Service Enhancement Branch site. Obviously, the headlines jumped out at me, and called me to read on. Well, not quite, but they did arouse my idle curiosity, particularly because they also had with them a report on the SAPOL perspective on the WA Police royal commission.
The one on the royal commission is an easy read. It raised some very pertinent points on policing. The acknowledgement for researching and drafting it goes to Constable Andrew Holliday. Well done, Andrew, for making it readable.
I will not take up the issues but merely encourage all to have a read. There are certainly some stimulating issues raised.
Policing will continue to evolve and the direction of the evolution will be determined by the findings of royal commissions and parliamentary inquiries. Ignore them at your peril.
The papers on integrity are a more interesting read after reading the royal commission paper, or any writing on police royal commissions for that matter.
