Chapter 6
Committee conclusions
6.1
Due to the level of highly contradictory evidence presented to the
committee, it is difficult to accurately gauge the extent to which Australia
Post's injury management system is problematic. On one hand, Australia Post argued
that:
With around 4,000 referrals under the early intervention
program each year to independent doctors, a relatively small number within the
three-year period have been presented to this inquiry. We submit they are not
representative and do not support the submission that Australia Post's policies
and programs are fundamentally or systemically flawed.[1]
6.2
Dr Milecki also gave evidence that the number of complaints he receives
regarding FNDs under Australia Post's program are relatively small compared to
InjuryNET's other clients.[2]
6.3
However, on the other hand, Secretary and Treasurer of the Victorian
Branch of the Postal and Telecommunications Branch of the CEPU, Ms Joan Doyle,
told the committee that:
We have only put forward a tiny fraction of the cases we know
about, only cases where there is no doubt about medical evidence and we have
been proved to be right...It is a systemic problem that needs to be stamped out.[3]
6.4
In the committee's view, the only objective measure of Australia Post's
injury management system is the series of audits conducted by Comcare, in which
no systemic issues were found with Australia Post's injury management system.
Mr Steve Kibble, Deputy Chief Executive Officer of Comcare explained
that:
Generally [Australia Post is] a good performer in terms of
rehabilitation and return to work. They are generally regarded by us as a good
performer by comparison with others.[4]
6.5
Having considered all of the evidence presented during the course of
this inquiry, the committee sees the key problem with Australia Post's
treatment of injured and ill workers not being the program itself, but its
communications with employees and with unions about the program; the links
between EIP medical assessments and the workers' compensation scheme; and the
lack of involvement and input that employees have in developing their own
return-to-work program.
6.6
Dr Wyatt commented that the problems experienced at Australia Post are
not unusual, and are common across the country, as well as internationally. She
stated that 'employees are often disenfranchised and employers often struggle'.[5]
6.7
Similar evidence was also presented by international experts from Canada
and the United States.[6]
6.8
In her evidence to the committee, Dr Wyatt explained that the situation
at Australia Post with regard to injury management has become highly emotional.
She explained that:
When you get that you have a lot of perceived injustice and
blame so it becomes very hard to read the situation...Often the issue is what
control the person has when they go back to work. The best evidence we have
about back problems, for example, is that activity is important and people
should not be terribly restricted. It does not mean they can do everything, but
they should not be unduly restricting their activity.[7]
6.9
The expert medical evidence offered during the inquiry clearly shows
that it is in an injured person's best interest to minimise the time they spend
away from work, and to return to work as soon as practicable performing satisfying
and physically appropriate duties. Australia Post's EIP attempts to put this
evidence into practice by allowing employees to access medical services early
and at no cost, when they are injured in the workplace. The appropriateness of
the 'theory' of Australia Post's injury management program is supported by
evidence from Comcare.
6.10
However, the benefits of the program have been frustrated as a result of
insufficient employee buy-in, and a lack of clear agreement between Australia
Post, supervisors, workers and unions regarding the rights and obligations of
each party under the program. In the committee's view the frustration of a
fundamentally positive program because of a lack of communication and empathy
between the parties involved is extremely disappointing.
6.11
The committee has made four recommendations as to how specific elements
of Australia Post's injury management program might be improved. Each relies on
good faith negotiation between Australia Post, employees and unions, greater
information-sharing, and improved knowledge about Australia Post's injury
management programs at all levels. The committee notes that significant
good-faith negotiation has already begun—for example with respect to the
in-principal agreement between Australia Post and the CEPU on the new FND
policy to be incorporated into Australia Post's new enterprise agreement, and
the recent MOU in which Australia Post agreed to abolish bonus payments based
on LTIs. The committee urges all parties to continue this constructive process.
Senator Mary Jo Fisher
Chair
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page