The Injury Isn't the Risk. Work Capacity Is.

The Injury Isn't the Risk. Work Capacity Is.

Many organisations spend considerable effort determining whether an injury is work-related. Far fewer spend the same effort understanding the worker's capacity to perform the job safely.

I was recently reading through some of the changes and commentary relating to South Australia's return to work system. It wasn't the legislation itself that caught my attention, but rather where my mind wandered while reading it. After more than three decades working across policing, investigations, emergency management, mining and heavy industry, I found myself reflecting on something I have observed repeatedly, regardless of the organisation or industry.

We spend a great deal of time deciding whether an injury or illness is work-related or non-work-related. For the purposes of this blog, I refer to these as Work-Related Injury and Illness (WRII) and Non-Work-Related Injury and Illness (NWRII). That distinction is both necessary and appropriate because legislation, compensation schemes and insurance arrangements depend upon it.

The Return to Work Act 2014 (SA) places clear obligations on employers to support recovery and, where reasonably practicable, provide suitable employment to workers with a work-related injury. Similar obligations exist across Australia, supported by Safe Work Australia, state regulators and workers' compensation authorities, all of which rightly promote early intervention, meaningful suitable duties and coordinated return to work planning.

None of that is in dispute.

What I have often questioned, however, is whether organisations sometimes allow those administrative differences to shape the way they think about the worker.

Once someone is in the workplace, the injury or illness itself becomes only part of the conversation. What really matters is the person's capacity to safely perform the work expected of them. Whether that capacity has been affected by a workplace injury or illness, a sporting accident, surgery, illness or another life event makes very little difference to the operational risks that now exist within the workplace. The legislation may differ, the insurer may differ, the administrative process certainly differs. The worker's capacity and the risks associated with the work do not.

What Do We Mean by Work Capacity?

Before going further, it is worth explaining what I mean by work capacity, because the term is used differently across legislation, medicine and rehabilitation.

Under South Australia's Return to Work Act 2014, an injured worker's capacity for work sits at the heart of decisions relating to suitable employment and return to work. The legislation and accompanying ReturnToWorkSA guidance focus on identifying the work a person is fit and able to perform, rather than simply determining whether they are "fit" or "unfit" for work. In doing so, employers are expected to consider not only medical information, but also the worker's skills, experience, employment history and the availability of suitable employment.

From a clinical perspective, work capacity is often described as a person's ability to perform specific job tasks. Functional Capacity Evaluations (FCEs), medical assessments and other clinical tools may be used to assess physical function and compare that against the demands of the work. Research supports the use of these assessments as one source of evidence, particularly when they are based on the actual requirements of the role. At the same time, the literature is equally clear that no single assessment should be relied upon in isolation. Sustainable work participation is also influenced by cognitive demands, psychological wellbeing, workplace support, organisational culture and the way work is designed.

The courts have taken a similarly practical approach. Decisions of the South Australian Employment Tribunal have consistently demonstrated that work capacity cannot be reduced to a medical certificate alone. In considering suitable employment, the Tribunal has recognised that the nature of the work, the workplace environment, psychological factors and the practical realities of returning someone to work may all be relevant. Capacity, in other words, is assessed within the context of the work being performed rather than in isolation from it.

Throughout this article, I use the term "work capacity" in a broader organisational sense. It is the extent to which a person can safely, effectively and sustainably perform the inherent  requirements of a role at a particular point in time, having regard to their physical, cognitive and psychological capability, the demands of the work and the environment in which that work is performed.

That distinction is important because work capacity is not static. It changes as people recover, as work changes and as workplaces introduce new controls or support. Understanding that relationship is fundamental to effective return to work, but its value extends well beyond injury management. It influences recruitment, pre-employment assessments, workforce planning, leadership, business continuity and organisational resilience because every one of those activities ultimately depends on understanding the relationship between the worker, the work and the workplace.

Looking Beyond WRII and NWRII

Perhaps that all sounds obvious, yet I have seen many organisations inadvertently separate work-related injuries and non-work-related injuries into different systems, managed by different teams and often supported by different philosophies. Safety manages one. Human Resources manages the other. Rehabilitation providers become involved in one case but not another. Information flows differently, conversations happen in isolation and opportunities to support the worker are sometimes lost simply because the administrative pathway has become the focus.

Looking back, I can remember workers returning after non-work-related injuries under relatively simple plans that acknowledged their injury but gave little consideration to the actual demands of the work they were returning to. More than once I watched people struggle because the plan had not adequately considered the lifting requirements, awkward postures, repetitive movements or cognitive demands of their role. In a small number of cases, those limitations contributed to further incidents after they had returned to work.

I have also seen workers with significant medical histories undertaking safety critical work where the discussion centred almost entirely on medical clearance. The question became whether they had been cleared by their doctor rather than whether everyone involved genuinely understood the inherent requirements of the job and whether those requirements aligned with the worker's current capacity.

Those experiences have stayed with me because they reinforced a simple thought.

Managing a compensation claim is not the same thing as managing work capacity.

That distinction becomes increasingly important when we consider the scale of work-related injury across Australia. Safe Work Australia reported almost 147,000 serious workers' compensation claims during 2023–24. Those are not minor injuries.

They represent accepted claims involving at least one week away from work and equate to more than four hundred serious claims every day across the country. Manufacturing, healthcare, construction, transport and public administration account for the majority of those claims, highlighting that the challenge spans industries rather than being isolated to traditionally high-risk workplaces.

Even those numbers tell only part of the story.

Workers' compensation statistics represent accepted claims, not every work-related injury or illness. Many injuries are managed without a formal claim, some are treated and workers remain at work, others are never reported and some claims are not accepted. The true burden of work-related injury is therefore considerably larger than compensation data alone suggests.

The economic consequences are equally significant. Safe Work Australia and Deloitte Access Economics have estimated that work-related injury and illness costs the Australian economy tens of billions of dollars every year through lost productivity, healthcare expenditure, employer costs and reduced workforce participation. Employers carry substantial direct costs through compensation premiums, replacement labour, overtime, recruitment, training, investigations and reduced productivity. They also carry indirect costs that are far more difficult to measure but often have a greater impact on organisational performance.

Anyone who has led a team through a serious injury or illness understands this instinctively.

An experienced worker is absent. Someone else works additional shifts to maintain production. Supervisors devote hours to investigations, meetings and administration. Colleagues become distracted or anxious. New employees require training. Projects slow. Customers experience delays. The organisation continues to function, but rarely at the same level of effectiveness.

Those costs matter because they affect the sustainability of every business.

The human cost matters even more.

An injury or illness can interrupt a career, reduce confidence, affect future earning capacity and place enormous pressure on families. Partners often become carers. Household routines change. Financial uncertainty increases. Mental health may deteriorate and prolonged time away from work can make returning increasingly difficult. These impacts rarely appear in compensation statistics, yet they are often the consequences that workers and families remember long after the paperwork has been finalised.

For me, that is why return to work should never be viewed simply as a compliance activity or an insurance process. It is fundamentally about understanding people, understanding work and creating the conditions that allow someone to recover while remaining safe, productive and connected to meaningful employment.

The legislation already points us in that direction. ReturnToWorkSA guidance consistently emphasises suitable employment, early intervention, consultation and meaningful planning. National research has repeatedly demonstrated that workers experience better outcomes when employers engage early, suitable duties are available, supervisors remain supportive and communication is maintained throughout recovery. Interestingly, those principles are not unique to workplace injuries. They represent good practice whenever a worker's capacity has changed, regardless of how that change occurred.

Perhaps that is why I have increasingly come to believe that organisations should separate their administrative pathways but unify their operational approach.

A worker who injures their shoulder playing football may follow a very different administrative process to someone who injures the same shoulder at work. The insurer may change, legislative obligations may differ, documentation certainly changes, however:

• The work does not.

• The shoulder still has the same limitations.

• The role still requires the same physical, cognitive and psychological demands.

• The supervisor still needs to allocate work safely.

• The team still needs to understand any temporary restrictions.

• Operationally, the challenge is almost identical.

Job Task Analyses: More Than Rehabilitation Documents

This is where I believe organisations can significantly improve their approach by investing in robust Job Task Analyses.

Too often these documents are viewed as rehabilitation paperwork completed after someone has already been injured. In reality, they should form part of an organisation's governance framework, underpinning recruitment, position descriptions, pre-employment assessments, fitness for work decisions, workforce planning and return to work.

More fundamentally, a Job Task Analysis should help answer a simple but important question: why does this role exist?

Every position within an organisation exists because it delivers value. In the commercial sector that value may be measured through productivity, profitability, efficiency, risk reduction or customer outcomes. In government and not-for-profit organisations it may be measured through service delivery, community outcomes or public value. Whatever the organisation's purpose, every role should make a meaningful contribution to achieving it.

Understanding that value is critical because it allows organisations to identify the inherent requirements of the role and distinguish between tasks that are essential and those that are simply the way the job has always been done. That understanding not only strengthens recruitment and return-to-work planning, but also supports workforce design, succession planning, business continuity and organisational resilience.

A well-developed Job Task Analysis therefore describes far more than a list of activities. It identifies the physical, cognitive, psychosocial and environmental demands required to perform the role safely, effectively and sustainably. It also provides the benchmark against which work capacity can be assessed throughout the employee lifecycle, from recruitment and pre-employment assessments through to injury and illness management, recovery and return to work.

When these requirements are documented properly they become invaluable during recovery planning because everyone involved is discussing the same job rather than making assumptions based on a job title.

Every position consumes organisational resources and should contribute meaningfully to organisational objectives, whether that is generating commercial value, delivering public services or achieving community outcomes. Understanding the inherent requirements of a role enables organisations to recruit more effectively, design work more intelligently, assess fitness for work more consistently and make better decisions throughout the employment lifecycle.

Treating practitioners benefit enormously from understanding what the work actually involves. It is unrealistic to expect a doctor or physiotherapist to provide meaningful advice about suitable duties if the only information they receive is that someone works as an operator, technician or supervisor. Those titles reveal very little about the work itself.

A clear Job Task Analysis enables far more informed clinical decisions and, ultimately, better outcomes for both the worker and the organisation.

The same principles extend beyond an organisation's own employees. Many organisations rely heavily on contractors, labour hire workers and specialist service providers to perform work on their behalf. Where multiple duty holders are involved, legislative duties coexist and cannot be contracted out. Good governance therefore requires more than simply engaging a competent contractor. Organisations should have processes to clearly define the scope of work, identify the inherent requirements and capabilities needed to perform that work, verify that workers possess the necessary skills, competencies and licences, satisfy themselves, so far as is reasonably practicable, that workers are capable of performing the work safely, and maintain appropriate consultation, coordination and monitoring throughout the engagement. Safe Work Australia's model WHS laws place duties on PCBUs to consult, cooperate and coordinate activities where multiple duty holders are involved. Viewed through the broader lens of work capacity, those same principles reinforce the need to understand both the work being performed and the capability of the people performing it, regardless of who employs them.

Leadership Beyond Compliance

I also believe organisations can sometimes underestimate the influence of frontline leaders in supporting positive return to work outcomes.

Most recovery plans are written by people who rarely supervise the worker day to day. They may coordinate the process exceptionally well, but they are not the ones allocating work each morning, observing changes in capacity or noticing when someone is struggling. That responsibility usually rests with the frontline leader.

If leaders lack confidence in interpreting recovery plans, understanding suitable duties or having supportive conversations, even the best documented plan can fail. Conversely, when leaders understand both the worker and the work, they become one of the most effective controls available to the organisation.

Like every other leadership capability, this should not be assumed. It should be developed.

Managers and supervisors need practical training in understanding work capacity, recognising restrictions, adjusting work safely, monitoring recovery and maintaining respectful communication. They also need to understand why these conversations matter, not simply because legislation requires them but because their actions directly influence recovery, engagement and organisational performance.

Recovery Planning Is a Conversation

Recovery planning itself also deserves greater attention.

In my experience, the strongest plans are rarely developed through emails exchanged between different parties over several weeks. They emerge from genuine conversations involving the worker, their leader, the return to work coordinator and relevant health professionals. Wherever possible those conversations should occur face to face and within the work environment.

Standing beside the equipment, walking through the workplace and discussing the work as it is actually performed changes the conversation completely. It also provides an opportunity to validate the Job Task Analysis, because roles and work expectations inevitably evolve. Unless they are regularly reviewed, Job Task Analysis documents can quickly become outdated and no longer reflect the inherent requirements of the position.

People stop talking about generic restrictions and start talking about the work itself. Standing in the workplace creates a shared understanding of what the role actually requires, which tasks remain appropriate, which may need temporary modification and where additional controls or support may be needed. It also provides a much clearer picture of the operational impacts, allowing leaders to identify alternative arrangements that maintain both safe operations and the worker's recovery.

This collaborative approach benefits everyone. Workers gain confidence because expectations are clear and they can see how their recovery is being supported. Supervisors have a practical understanding of how work will be managed, while treating health professionals receive accurate information about the demands of the role rather than relying on assumptions or second-hand descriptions. For the organisation, it reduces uncertainty, supports better decision-making and strengthens the management of operational risk.

Recovery planning should also be viewed as an ongoing process rather than a document completed at a single point in time. Recovery rarely follows a straight line, and both a person's capacity and the workplace itself can change. Regular reviews therefore become more than an administrative requirement; they provide an opportunity to discuss progress, reassess work capacity, identify emerging issues and adjust duties or controls as recovery continues. No single discipline owns this process.

Successful recovery depends upon collaboration between the worker, their leader, Human Resources, safety professionals, rehabilitation providers, treating doctors, physiotherapists, occupational therapists and others involved in supporting recovery. Each brings a different perspective and, when those perspectives are brought together respectfully, decisions are almost always stronger than those made in isolation.

Managing Work Capacity, Not Just Claims

Reflecting on all of this, I sometimes wonder whether organisations have become exceptionally good at managing claims while giving less attention to managing work capacity. Claims are an essential part of the legislative and insurance framework, ensuring workers receive the support they are entitled to and employers meet their legal obligations. They are, however, administrative pathways rather than the end goal.

Every day, leaders make operational decisions about who performs work, under what conditions and with what controls. Whether an injury is work-related, non-work-related or not associated with an injury at all, those decisions ultimately come back to work capacity and whether a person can safely and effectively perform the inherent requirements of their role.

The distinction may seem subtle, but I believe it sits at the heart of effective WRII/NWRII management. Organisations don't simply manage claims; they manage people, work and the risks that exist where those two intersect. When work capacity becomes the focus, conversations naturally shift from entitlement and restrictions to capability, suitable work and the practical steps that support both recovery and operational performance.

The legislation quite properly distinguishes between work-related and non-work-related injuries because different legal and insurance arrangements apply. Organisations should continue to comply with those requirements. There is no suggestion that those pathways should disappear.

Legislation defines the obligations. Leadership determines how those obligations are put into practice.

Every worker whose capacity has changed deserves the same quality of planning, communication, consultation, leadership and support, regardless of where the injury or illness occurred. While administrative consistency may never be possible because legislative and insurance frameworks differ, operational consistency is entirely achievable because the principles of good leadership, sound governance and effective risk management remain the same.

Final Thoughts

Looking back over many years working across military, policing, government, mining and heavy industry, that is perhaps the greatest lesson I have taken from injury management. The question is not simply whether someone has been injured at work. It is whether we genuinely understand the work they are returning to, whether we understand the capability they bring with them today and whether we have involved the right people in developing a plan that supports recovery while protecting both the worker and the organisation.

For me, that is where the conversation should begin.

When organisations understand the inherent requirements of their roles, recruit thoughtfully, lead well, maintain current Job Task Analyses and genuinely understand work capacity, return to work becomes only one expression of a much broader organisational capability. It strengthens recruitment, workforce planning, business continuity, operational resilience and, perhaps most importantly, builds trust. Workers are far more likely to speak up early, seek support and participate openly in their recovery when they know the organisation is focused on understanding their capability rather than simply administering a claim.

Ultimately, work capacity is not something organisations should only think about after an injury. It should be understood before employment begins, developed through effective leadership, supported throughout a person's career and reviewed whenever circumstances change. If we can achieve that, return to work ceases to be an administrative obligation and becomes what it should have been all along: a practical demonstration of good leadership, sound governance and genuine care for people.

A Quick Organisational Health Check

As you reflect on your own organisation, consider a few simple questions:

• Do we have current Job Task Analyses for our roles?

• Do they accurately describe the physical, cognitive, psychosocial and environmental demands of the work?

• Are our position descriptions aligned with the inherent requirements identified in those JTAs?

• Are recruitment, pre-employment assessments and fitness-for-work processes based on those inherent requirements?

• Do our leaders understand the demands of the roles they supervise and have the capability to manage changes in work capacity?

• Do we regularly review JTAs and position descriptions following organisational change, significant incidents or investigations to ensure they still reflect the work as it is actually performed?

• Where contractors perform work on our behalf, have we assured ourselves that they have appropriate processes to define role requirements, assess capability and manage work capacity?

• Most importantly, are we simply managing injury and illness claims, or are we genuinely understanding and managing work capacity across our organisation?

References

Legislation

• Return to Work Act 2014 (SA)

  • Sections 4, 18 and 43 establish the framework for suitable employment, work capacity, recovery planning and employer obligations.

• Work Health and Safety Act 2012 (SA)

  • Establishes primary duties of care and the requirement for PCBUs to manage risks so far as is reasonably practicable.

• Work Health and Safety Regulations 2012 (SA)

  • Supports legislative duties relating to risk management, consultation and worker health and safety.

Case Law

Walmsley v Crown Equipment Pty Ltd [2016] SAET 4

Why it matters

One of the first significant South Australian Employment Tribunal decisions interpreting section 18 of the Return to Work Act 2014 (SA). The Tribunal confirmed that return-to-work obligations focus on providing suitable employment based on a worker's capacity, not simply on their pre-injury position. The decision also reinforced that modified duties, inherent requirements and practical workplace circumstances must all be considered when determining suitable employment.

Puhara v ReturnToWorkSA (Flinders Adelaide Container Terminal) [2019] SAET 3

Why it matters

Provides further guidance on how the South Australian Employment Tribunal assesses disputes concerning suitable employment under section 18. The decision reinforces that employers must genuinely consider what suitable work can reasonably be provided rather than approaching return to work as a purely administrative exercise.

Blackadder v Ramsey Butchering Services Pty Ltd (2005) 221 CLR 539

Why it matters

Although decided in an employment law context rather than workers' compensation, the High Court provides important guidance on the concept of inherent requirements of a role. The case highlights the importance of identifying the genuine requirements of the job before determining whether a person has the capacity to perform it - an important principle underpinning Job Task Analyses and work-capacity assessments.

X v Commonwealth (1999) 200 CLR 177

Why it matters

A leading High Court decision on inherent requirements and capacity. The Court recognised that decisions about a person's ability to perform work must be based on the actual requirements of the position, rather than assumptions or generalisations about an individual's condition or circumstances.

Government Guidance

• Safe Work Australia. Australian Workers' Compensation Statistics 2023–24. (National data on serious workers' compensation claims.)

• Safe Work Australia. Model Code of Practice: Work Health and Safety Consultation, Cooperation and Coordination.

• ReturnToWorkSA. Guidance material relating to suitable employment, return to work coordination and recovery planning.

Research

• Waddell G, Burton AK. Is Work Good for Your Health and Wellbeing? (2006).

• Black C. Working for a Healthier Tomorrow. (2008).

• Schultz IZ, Gatchel RJ (Eds.). Handbook of Return to Work: From Research to Practice.

• Loisel P, Buchbinder R, Hazard R, et al. "Prevention of Work Disability Due to Musculoskeletal Disorders." Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation.

• Gross DP, Battie MC. "Functional Capacity Evaluation Performance Does Not Predict Sustained Return to Work." Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation.