Manager Experiences with the Return to Work Process in a Large, Publically Funded, Hospital Setting: Walking a Fine Line

Abstract

Although it is not their legislative responsibility, Danish managers play a key role in the RTW process. As has been observed in other contexts, Danish supervisors struggle to balance considerations for the returning worker with those of their teams.

“Dis-able bodied” or “dis-able minded”: stakeholders’ return-to-work experiences compared between physical and mental health conditions

“…Moreover, similar to an earlier study by Stochkendahl et al, [15] this research found that a reliance on "may rules" does not mean that no actions are taken in Denmark. In almost half of the cases, supervisors took the responsibility to draw up a RTW plan, while Danish labor agreements ensured that wages are paid after the mandatory wage payment period of 30 days (to four to nine weeks for blue-collar workers and to one year for white-collar workers).…”

“…Workplace actors in both countries have obtained a statutory role in activating sicklisted employees to RTW early, albeit to a different extent. Legislation in the Netherlands stipulates that the RTW process is the shared responsibility of employers and employees; by contrast, since legislation in Denmark places the responsibility to initiate the RTW process with municipalities, less policy initiatives are focused on workplace actors, [15,31] who are the focus of this study. As shown in Table 1, the Dutch RTW legislation for workplaces is characterized by extensive, obligatory "must rules" coupled with sanctions, [27] whereas noncompulsory "may rules" (without sanctions) are characteristic of the Danish legislation.…”

“…[13,14] Moreover, employers' actions appear influenced by the value and the replaceability of the sick-listed employee, and by the presence of goodwill and trust. [4,6,[15][16][17][18][19] Finally, research has pointed to the potentially facilitating role of OHPs in the RTW process, [4] the stimulating role of unions on employers taking proactive RTW measures, [8,20] and to the relevance of coworkers in the phase before, during and after the RTW. [21,22] As such, these studies highlight the significance (and complexity) of workplace relations and multidisciplinary collaboration in the RTW process.…”

“…[4,23] This is because scholars have either addressed RTW experiences in relation to a specific symptom group, such as musculoskeletal disorders, [7,14] cancer, [13,17] common mental disorders [19,24] and depression, [20] or have not distinguished between the two health conditions in their findings. [6,9,11,12,15,16,18] As a result, the limited available research has proven inconclusive so far: While some literature reviews suggest the existence of similarities between RTW experiences in physical (here, musculoskeletal) and mental health conditions, [23] such as the importance of work adjustments, [4,25] qualitative studies noted differences in RTW experiences between both health conditions. For instance, with regard to early contact, Tjulin et al [26] found that supervisors and coworkers felt that the timing of the RTW should vary between physical and mental illnesses, and Hoefsmit et al [10] observed that in mental cases, supervisors and employees tended to not have early contact, compared to physical cases.…”

Supervisor and Organizational Factors Associated with Supervisor Support of Job Accommodations for Low Back Injured Workers

“…Supervisors play a key role in the job accommodation process [12]. Supervisors may be asked by their employer to interpret medical restrictions, document job demands, create modified duty positions, or temper production demands.…”