Outdated Recruitment Practices: Why Asking About Workers Compensation Claims Is a Risk Organisations Can’t Afford
- Tenneile Manenti
- Feb 3
- 4 min read
Every so often, a client or colleague tells me about a question they were asked in a recruitment interview that makes my shoulders tense instantly.
“Have you ever had a workers compensation claim?”
Not can you do the job safely?
Not do you have any current restrictions we should be aware of?
A backward-looking question about a past claim — one that quietly reveals far more about the organisation asking it than the candidate answering it.
And despite years of guidance, it’s still being asked.
The Recruitment Question That Refuses to Die
Sometimes it’s asked outright.
Sometimes it’s buried in pre-employment medical forms.
Sometimes it’s softened with, “It’s just part of our process.”
And too often, it does exactly what it was designed to do.
It quietly removes people from consideration.
In NSW and across Australia, asking candidates whether they have ever had a workers compensation claim is outdated, high-risk, and misaligned with both the law and contemporary thinking about work-related harm.
This isn’t about political correctness or being overly cautious.
It’s about risk management, performance, and credibility.
What the Law and Best Practice Actually Say
In Australia, candidates generally do not have to disclose a past workers compensation claim when applying for a role or speaking with recruiters.
Why?
Because a previous claim is medical history, not a measure of current capacity.
Before a job offer is made, employers and recruitment agencies should not be asking about:
Past workers compensation claims
Previous injuries or illnesses
Historical mental health treatment
Questions like these can fall foul of:
Anti-discrimination legislation
Privacy obligations
Fair recruitment principles reinforced by the Fair Work Ombudsman
WHS guidance aligned with Safe Work NSW
What can be asked (and when)
Usually after a job offer, employers may ask whether a person can:
Perform the inherent requirements of the role, with or without reasonable adjustments
That’s the lawful and ethical line.
The focus is on capacity now, not what happened years ago, in a different role, under different conditions, often within a system that contributed to harm.
Unless someone has current restrictions that affect their ability to safely perform the role, there is no requirement to disclose a previous workers compensation claim.
Why This Matters for HR and WHS Leaders
This issue isn’t confined to recruitment etiquette.
It goes directly to how organisations understand risk.
Modern WHS thinking recognises that:
Harm is often system-created, not person-created
Certain roles carry predictable physical and psychological exposures
Work design, workload, leadership, and culture are primary drivers of injury
When recruitment processes quietly screen people out based on past claims, they reinforce an outdated belief that the worker is the risk.
That belief directly contradicts contemporary WHS frameworks, which place responsibility on organisations to:
Identify hazards
Control risk
Design safer systems of work
If someone was harmed at work, the critical question isn’t “Why are they risky?”It’s “What happened in the system — and what has changed?”
The Neuroscience Lens: Why These Questions Backfire
From a brain-based perspective, asking about past workers compensation claims during recruitment creates predictable — and counterproductive — outcomes.
1. Threat responses replace trust
When candidates sense judgement or exclusion risk, the brain shifts into threat mode. This reduces openness, increases impression-management, and discourages honest conversations about capacity and support needs.
That doesn’t make hiring safer.
It makes it less informed.
2. Stigma increases cognitive load
People who have recovered from injury often carry heightened self-monitoring. Stigmatising questions add cognitive load, anxiety, and disengagement — before employment even begins.
3. Organisations lose strong performers
Many people who have navigated injury and recovery bring:
Greater self-regulation
Higher risk awareness
Stronger leadership maturity
Quietly excluding them isn’t risk control.
It’s talent leakage.
The Business Case Organisations Can’t Ignore
Outdated recruitment practices don’t just harm candidates — they harm organisations.
The real costs include:
Shrinking the talent pool in already constrained labour markets
Increased psychosocial risk after hire due to poor job-fit conversations
Higher turnover when expectations and capacity aren’t discussed properly
Reputational damage in values-driven industries
Legal exposure if recruitment decisions are challenged
Organisations that modernise their approach see:
Better alignment between role demands and capability
Earlier, safer conversations about adjustments
Stronger engagement and trust
Improved recovery and retention outcomes
This isn’t about lowering standards.
It’s about asking better questions.
What Best Practice Recruitment Looks Like
Modern recruitment processes ask:
What are the inherent requirements of this role?
What risks does the role expose people to — physically and psychologically?
What controls, supports, and adjustments exist?
Can this person safely perform the role now?
That approach protects:
The organisation
The individual
The system they operate within
And it aligns with WHS obligations that prioritise psychological safety, not quiet exclusion.
Why These Outdated Recruitment Practices Must Be Called Out
We’ve spent years shifting the narrative away from blaming workers for harm.
We now acknowledge that:
Work can injure people
Some harm is predictable
Systems matter more than individual fault
Continuing to screen people out for surviving work undermines that progress.
These recruitment practices don’t make workplaces safer.
They just make harm easier to hide.
And that’s why they must be called out — clearly, calmly, and without apology.
Need Support?
If your organisation is reviewing recruitment processes, medical questionnaires, or psychosocial risk controls, this is the moment to modernise.
I support:
HR and WHS teams reviewing recruitment and disclosure practices
Organisations building trauma-informed, psychologically safe systems
Leaders navigating capacity, adjustments, and recovery conversations
Workplace consulting, policy reviews, and targeted training available
Telehealth psychological support for individuals navigating work-related injury or recovery
Let’s stop screening people out — and start designing work that protects them.
This article forms part of the Workplace Emotional Bruises series—stories and insights that explore the quieter psychological impacts of work, particularly in high-pressure environments where the emotional load is real, but rarely spoken about.
Comments