Professional and industry views 386. Information provided by a worker representative, an ACCS officer and the Police Association of Victoria is consistent with some of the documentary evidence of limited offers at conciliation. 387. At interview, a worker representative said they had heard the agents talk about the financial rewards when making offers at conciliation. The representative said: I have heard them [the agents] talk about they have made an offer and they can’t make any more because of financial benefits, well not financial, but because of their benchmarks...[and] KPIs. Every so often you will get [an Agent staff member] say ‘Well I can’t offer any more because of our KPI measures’286.
388. The then Senior Conciliation Officer of the ACCS raised concerns about the practice of making limited offers of compensation at conciliation up to an ‘arbitrary date’, which the ACCS believed was directly linked to the financial reward measure dates.287 As mentioned earlier, details about the financial rewards and penalty measures are not made public and the ACCS does not know whether a claim falls within a particular financial reward and penalty measure. 389. The Secretary of the Police Association of Victoria similarly commented that it had ‘over time noticed a pattern of limited offers of weekly payments at conciliation of less than 13 weeks’ which he presumed were linked to the ‘performance indicators’.288 The Association’s observations are noteworthy given WorkSafe financially rewards agents for reducing the number of claims where weekly payments exceed 13 weeks.
286 Interview of a worker representative. 287 Interview of the former Senior Conciliation Officer, the ACCS on 7 September 2015. 288 Letter from the Secretary of the Police Association of Victoria dated 18 November 2015.
118 www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au
390. The following case study is an example of an agent making a limited offer. In this case, Allianz terminated a worker’s claim and made a limited offer of payments to the worker at conciliation in line with the relevant financial measure date. Allianz refused to provide a further six weeks of payments on the basis that it would prevent Allianz achieving the financial reward for the termination of this claim. Case study 26: Agent ‘can offer up to 13 weeks [of payments] only’, otherwise claim will ‘tip’ A 62-year-old delivery driver lodged a claim for a shoulder injury sustained after falling off the step of their truck. Allianz accepted the worker’s claim and the worker subsequently underwent shoulder surgery. One month after their surgery, Allianz sent the worker to an IME to assess their condition and capacity to return to work. Despite being asked not to factor in the worker’s age, the IME concluded that the worker had no work capacity and their incapacity was indefinite. Allianz terminated payments based on selective use of evidence and an outdated report Allianz nevertheless terminated the worker’s entitlements at 130 weeks on the basis that the worker had a work capacity, or their incapacity was not indefinite. Allianz’s decision was based on a report from the worker’s GP which stated the worker could return to sedentary duties part time. However, the GP also stated that their return to work could be hampered by any future shoulder surgery and that ‘full recovery was uncertain’.