STRATEGIES FOR EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT OF RETURN TO WORK
Transcript of STRATEGIES FOR EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT OF RETURN TO WORK
1
STRATEGIES FOR EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT OF RETURN TO
WORK Ryan Conlin and
Allison Taylor
Stringer LLP
Management Lawyers
110 Yonge Street, Suite 1100
Toronto, ON M5C 1T4
www.stringerllp.com
2
Two types:
Employees on long-term disability or WSIB benefits for several years
Employees with large periods of sporadic absence over a long time
3
Human Rights Code
(1) Definition Human Rights Code prohibits discrimination
on grounds of “disability”
Unless absenteeism relates to a “disability”, Code has no application
Code definition of disability: a) Any degree of physical disability, infirmity,
malformation or disfigurement that is caused by bodily injury, birth defect or illness…,
b) A condition of mental impairment or a development disability,
4
c) A learning disability, or a dysfunction in one or more of the processes involved in understanding or using symbols or spoken language;
d) A mental disorder, or
e) An injury or disability for which benefits were claimed or received under the insurance plan established under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.
5
“Normal” medical conditions (colds and flu) not considered disability
Systemic ill-health a grey area
Perception of condition as disabling may render a “disability” for purposes of Code
6
Non-evident disabilities like autism, epilepsy, bipolar disorder: Dawson
Mental illness and perceived impact on performance: Wilson, Lane
Alcoholism, drug abuse – employer must be proactive in identifying (normally no accommodation when none sought by employee)
Individualized assessment: Grismer
7
Past disabilities qualify for protection, past alcoholism being a common case
8
Disability or Not?
In Rogers Sugar, grievor absent from work due to emotional reaction to inhumane rodent control program in workplace
Diagnosis of “active stress reaction/depression"
Medical condition not cause of inability to work
While real, in essence employee chose to leave workplace
9
In Beauregard v. Canada Post, where medical issues existed because grievor “unhappy” at job he did not like and found degrading, not disability
In CUPE v. Brampton, “anxiety” respecting a workplace issue not constitute “disability”
10
(2) Types of Discrimination
Directly or indirectly discriminating against employees with disabilities breaches the Code
Direct discrimination-imposing harsher standards on disabled person
11
Indirect discrimination-holding disabled employees to same standards as other employees
Enforcing “standard” attendance policies is problematic
12
(3) Bona Fide Occupational Requirement Employer can defend on the basis that
discriminatory rule is bona fide occupational requirement if:
1. Adopted for purpose rationally connected to performance of the job;
2. Applied in honest and good-faith belief that necessary for work-related purpose;
3. Reasonably necessary to accomplishment of purpose and not possible to accommodate without undue hardship
13
In most cases rational connection and honest belief are demonstrable
Undue hardship more problematic
14
Duty to Accommodate
(1) Definition In seminal case of Meiorin, the Supreme
Court of Canada held that “conceptions of equality must be built into workplace standards”
Accommodation both in process (procedural) and outcome (substantive – whether possible or not)
15
Employer must review all possibilities for accommodation, including modification of duties, hours of work, alternative positions, etc. to fulfill duty
Obligations on both bargaining agent and employee to cooperate in accommodation
Employee must provide medical information and cooperate if necessary with independent medical examination
16
Accommodation need not be perfect or desirable to employee – a reasonable compromise
If employee refuses to cooperate, employer relieved of further obligation to accommodate
To avoid litigation over whether there was cooperation or not, involve employee and bargaining agent from outset and work collectively on accommodation that will work
17
(2) Process Create documents and procedures for recording
accommodation process, ie. for collecting medical information, gathering input from employee, management, union, re possible accommodations, analyzing and balancing options
Requests for medical information should reference duty to accommodate-recognizes obligation and justifies obtaining diagnosis, as well as restrictions, limitations and prognosis
Records must be kept of each stage of analysis Ensure all issues raised are considered
18
Analysis: 1. Does employee have a disability? 2. What are employee’s restrictions or limitations? 3. What effect do they have on employee’s work
and employer’s needs? 4. How could employee’s duties be modified to
meet restrictions? 5. If more than one modification possible, what are
benefits and detriments of each to employer relative to cost, productivity, quality, health and safety etc.?
19
6. If job cannot be modified, are other accommodations, including jobs, available?
7. What will be the effect of this on employer re: cost, productivity, quality, health and safety and on employee?
8. Are there too many similar accommodations?
20
(3) Undue Hardship Most significant burden for the employer is proving
undue hardship In Ontario, cost, health and safety only Supreme Court of Canada- must be concrete
evidence of undue hardship Mere belief that hardship exists not sufficient-
evidence of specific problems Must be clear that issue was thoroughly explored
with all parties when accommodation was being considered and reasonably rejected: Arnone Transport v. Teamsters
21
After Meiorin, cases diverged on whether absences due to disabilities must be excluded from attendance management
Supreme Court of Canada in Honda v. Keays: placing a disabled employee in an attendance management program is not discriminatory per se – a BFOR
Recognized the right to expect reasonable attendance
Accommodation of some degree of absence may be unavoidable – how much is enough?
22
Frustration of Contract
Employee can be terminated based on “frustration of contract”, ie. employee’s unforeseen and permanent inability to fulfill employment contract
23
For key employees such as senior management, frustration of contract may occur relatively early
Longer for easily interchangeable employees
Where LTD benefits through employer available, lengthy period of absence contemplated as part of employment contract
Accordingly, frustration of contract less likely before expiry of “own occupation” period under LTD plan (two years): Yeager, Senyk, Masonite
24
Frustration of contract always subject to employer’s duty to accommodate if possible
Will not apply where employee can work with accommodation but concept still exists, despite Code: Wightman, Senyk
Works best where employee entirely absent from work and no reasonable expectation that employee will ever be able to return
25
Must obtain medical evidence stating that employee will not be able to return to employment for foreseeable future in any capacity (ie. no accommodation possible)
Cannot rely on information gleaned from old medical, from employer’s insurer, from circumstances, from employee
Where disability is frustrating event, Employment Standards Act entitles employee to statutory notice and severance pay
No common law notice required
26
Very hard to demonstrate frustration of contract when employee has sporadic absences
Work may not be devoid of value to employer, especially where interchangeable employees
27
Some cases have held that termination for poor attendance due to disability is prima facie discriminatory and right to do so for frustration must be proven to be a BFOR: Senyk (2007) (ie. burden shifts to employer)
May need to warn of such termination first to allow employee to provide medical re: prognosis
28
Employer may have to tolerate sporadic non-attendance, even when attendance has been “horrendous”
In Desormeaux, employee suffered from migraines and other conditions and had 365 days of non-attendance in 9 years, 57 due to migraines
29
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal held employee was discriminated against by being terminated due to migraines
Federal Court on appeal overturned decision and held that evidence of GP re: migraines not enough to make it a disability
Federal Court of Appeal restored Tribunal decision, effectively requiring tolerance of considerable sporadic absence, despite no real evidence that overall attendance level would improve (size of employer a factor)
30
But in Hydro Quebec (SCC) (2008) (960 days of absence in 7.5 years), test for undue hardship not total absence from work but whether employee unable to fulfill basic employment obligations for foreseeable future (equates to frustration)
31
In some circumstances, deemed frustration of employment contracts clauses in collective agreements have been held to be discriminatory
In a number of cases, a clause which deemed frustration to occur after two years of absence was held to be discriminatory because of lack of individualized assessment of ability to return to work
32
However, in McGill University, a three year clause negotiated with the union held to be a form of accommodation
Deference given to the parties’ ability to know what was made sense in their workplace
However, review of individualized assessment did occur, not just application of three year rule
33
Effect of Disability Payments on Notice Period
Former approach: where employee is receiving disability payments, employee cannot seek alternative employment and therefore cannot be given actual notice, nor can employer set off disability payments against pay in lieu of notice: McKay v. Camco
However, in Sylvester, this approach overturned by SCC in favour of deductibility of post-termination disability benefits from pay in lieu of notice where employer pays for benefits
34
However, where employee contributes to or pays for LTD benefits, entitled to both benefits and pay in lieu ie. no deduction for employer
A “contribution” can include employee’s ostensible “agreement” to accept a lower salary because of provision of benefit
35
In Alcatel Canada Inc. v. Egan, where disability coverage cancelled, Court awarded value of notice to date of disability and disability benefits thereafter ie. to reflect what would have happened had notice been given (in effect, self-insuring)
In worst case scenario, employer could be liable for LTD benefits to age 65
Under most insurance policies, payments by employer deducted by insurer from benefits, ie. no actual double payment to employee
Burden transferred from insurer to employer
WSIB benefits deductible from notice
36
Avoid potential risk of liability associated with lost disability benefits by employment contract which provides fixed termination provision and limits benefits to health and dental only after ESA notice period
Must be done with consideration, ie. before employment, when promoted, etc.
37
Aggravated Damages
Wallace v. United Grain Growers: in cases of uncivil and harsh behaviour on termination, employer liable for additional notice as compensation to employee
“Wallace Damages” routinely awarded over next few years when employees terminated while ill, even if not disabled
38
Some cases did not subject this notice to mitigation
In Honda v. Keays, Supreme Court of Canada abolished Wallace damages in favour of aggravated damages to compensate employee for mental distress from treatment on termination
39
In Honda v. Keays case, Supreme Court of Canada approved an attendance management program
Application to Keays not discriminatory despite his disability
Employer’s request that he undergo an Independent Medical Examination was reasonable, given conflict between Keays’ conduct and his own doctor’s recommendations
40
The court in Keays therefore rolled back both aggravated damages and punitive damages awards made at trial (as amended on appeal)
41
Have been held to be dependent on actual evidence eg. medical attention
Are “general” damages, ie. tax-free, unlike extension on notice period
Not automatic just because employee terminated while on sick leave: Mulvihill
WSIB burning
Assets
6 years WSIB broke
Professor Harry
Author Funding
Review (Bill 135)
WSIB Funding Problems
Mandate to review income only, not benefits
Rate groups, experience rating, coverage, etc.
Phase Four September 2011 to November 2011
Review reviews consultation findings.
Phase Five January 2012
Chair of Review provides report to WSIB
Arthurs Review
Arthurs Mandate - Revenue
WSIB – Everyone Goes Back
New Return to Work
July 15, 2011, 6 new Work Reintegration operational policies
Work Reintegration Principles, Concepts and Definitions
(Policy #19-02-01)
Responsibilities of the Workplace Parties in Work Reintegration
(Policy #19-02-02)
Determining Suitable Occupation (Policy #19-03-03)
Work Transition Plans (Policy #19-03-05)
Work Transition Expenses (Policy #19-03-06)
Relocation Services (Policy #19-03-11)
Work Reintegration Policies
(see resources on USB stick)
Can Policy Trump Statute
Fit for essential duties
Da
te o
f In
jury
2 years
Begins Ends
Re-employment – All Workers
Earliest of…
Worker reaches age 65 Or…
Or… Worker declines offer of work
1 y
ear
Fit for suitable work
Em
plo
yer
rece
ives n
oti
ce
‘Suitable Work’
Worker fit for suitable work
Employer offers suitable work
Worker returns to work
Work that is safe - should not;
• cause re-injury or new injury
• endanger other workers
• cause travel (mobility)hazards
Employer offers suitable work
Worker claims work is NOT suitable
• Contacts WSIB
WSIB determines work offered IS suitable
Worker rejects WSIB decision
• does not return to work
• launches appeal Note: Employer obligation resumes
if WSIB decision overturned
ESRTW Key Concept S(40)
Return to work as a process
Starts the moment the employer learns that a worker has suffered a work-related injury/disease
Continues throughout the work-related injury/disease recovery and impairment period, and
Adapts to changes as they arise
Available Work S40(1)(b)
Work that exists with the accident employer
at the pre-injury worksite, or at a comparable worksite, arranged by the employer
Do not have to create a job
Specific criteria defines a comparable worksite
Safe Work
Work that doesn’t pose an increased health or safety risk to the worker (e.g.,should not cause re-injury or a new injury) or to co-workers
Worker has the functional ability to travel safely to and from the proposed worksite
Productive Work
Tasks provide an objective benefit to the employer’s business
Employer must connect work as an objective benefit to product / service
Objective benefit includes work that:
Forms part of the employer’s regular business operation
Permits worker to acquire new job skills
Generates revenue (aside from reducing WSIB costs), and/or
Increase business efficiency or lead to business improvements
Employers will need to consider how components of modified work objectively benefits their business
Required Communications Worker
Contact the employer as soon as possible after the work-related injury
Contact the employer as soon as possible after receiving initial health care treatment
Respond to written or telephone contacts from the employer “within a reasonable time”
Be available to communicate with the employer during regular work hours
Attend appointments/meetings with the employer
Employer
Contact the worker as soon as possible after the work-related injury
Provide the worker/WSIB with the company return to work contact(s),
direct supervisor, company nurse
Respond to written or telephone contacts from the worker “within a reasonable time”
Be available to communicate with the worker during regular work hours
Attend appointments/meetings with the worker
WSIB WR Work Reintegration 19-02-01
Policy recognizes employers combine tasks
“work” includes combining tasks/duties which together constitute a temporary or permanent job, as well as a short-term training program which leads to a job with the accident employer
Non Co-operation Penalty Process
Where WSIB considering making a finding of non-co-operation, WSIB first orally warns the workplace party:
Why the decision-maker is considering making a finding of non-co-operation
What behaviors and activities require change on the part of the workplace party
The likely consequences if the workplace party doesn’t change the behaviours/activities, and
Any legitimate reasons the workplace party may have for not co-operating in the return to work process.
WSIB confirms outcome of discussion in writing
Legitimate Employer
Non Co-operation The terms of a collective agreement
Summer or holiday shutdowns
General layoffs, strikes or lock outs
Corporate reorganization
Financial hardship
WR Summary of Penalties Penalty starts 7
days after date on written notice
Initial Penalty
First 14 Days of Breach
Ongoing Penalty
15 th Day + of Breach
Worker 50% LOE 100% LOE
Employer
50% LOE
100% LOE +
100% LMR Costs
Up to 12 Months
Concurrent Obligations
Construction employers have both RTW and Re-employment obligations: Obligation to co-operate in RTW begins once the
work- related injury/disease has occurred
Re-employment obligation begins once a worker is medically fit to do the essential duties of the pre-injury job or suitable work
If employer breaches both obligations, and the breaches are for different acts or omissions, the WSIB may levy both penalties
Forum Shopping
Increasingly common for workers who do not like decisions of the WSIB on work suitability to challenge the findings of the WSIB in other forums
In recent months we have seen workers file human rights applications, engage in work refusals under the OHSA and pursue grievances under collective agreements
Forum Shopping
A recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada appears to suggest that workers should pursue their disputes through the WSIB appeal process (British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Board) v. Figliola, 2011 SCC 52)
There are no cases to date which have addressed “forum shopping” with respect to work suitability
WSIB Return to Work Meetings
Attended by the workplace parties and a WSIB “Return to Work” Specialist
“Return to Work” Specialist makes recommendations to the Case Manager on suitability of work
The Case Manager usually follows the recommendations of the Return to Work Specialist
WSIB Return to Work Meetings
Workers are increasingly bringing union representation to Return to Work Meetings
Recommendations of the Return to Work Specialist are difficult to get overturned
It is highly recommended that employers have representation at Return to Work meetings
Employers need to be fully prepared for the meeting
WSIB Return to Work
Meetings Ensure that a Return to Work Plan is signed by
all parties at the meeting
Ensure that the employer has a list of available jobs, PDAs and job descriptions
Employer should make it clear that it expects the worker to comply with the plan and must be prepared to honour any commitments made to the worker
66
Scenario
A municipal employee is performing modified duties that the WSIB has ruled are suitable. The employee claims that he is now unable to perform these duties and refuses to attend at the workplace.
The WSIB once again rules that duties are suitable and refuses to pay any benefits. The municipality fires the employee for job abandonment.
67
Scenario
The employee appeals the WSIB’s decision and brings a human rights application against the municipality for discrimination on the basis of disability.
Can the municipality rely on the WSIB’s decision as defense in the human rights case? Does it matter whether the employee wins the WSIB appeal?
68
TOP 10 CLAIMS
MANAGEMENT MISTAKES #1- Taking Legal Advice from the WSIB Case
Manager
#2- Forgetting the WSIB Appeals process and reconsideration power
#3- Failing to keep in regular contact with the worker and the Case Manager
69
TOP 10 CLAIMS
MANAGEMENT MISTAKES #4- Failing to appeal questionable WSIB
decisions
#5-Failing to proactively address the reality that the WSIB appeals process can take many years
#6- Putting too much emphasis on the value of “gotcha” surveillance
70
TOP 10 CLAIMS
MANAGEMENT MISTAKES #7- Failing to follow-up with letters on every call from a
Case Manager
#8-Failing to document all interaction with the worker
#9-Allowing fear of litigation to prevent any termination of an employee with a disability or claim
#10- Failing to consider experience rating consequences of employment decisions
71
Conclusion Many employers are afraid to take any steps Employees may stay in limbo for years To avoid this, take some action to move the case
along, ie. seek medical information, push for return to work with accommodation, explore voluntary departure, etc.
No completely safe route Always get legal advice before commencing this
process Wait until the probability of return or significant
improvement in the situation relatively clear before initiating termination
72
Conclusion Duty to accommodate includes procedural (process
of considering accommodation) and substantive (accommodate or reasons for lack thereof) aspects of duty to accommodate
Only if return to work with or without accommodation clearly not possible within a reasonable time, employer can trigger frustration of contract
Frustration of contract a unilateral act (no release) Where any question as to sufficiency of time to
trigger frustration of contract, a severance package can be offered or “option” of termination offered
73
Conclusion
For either type of long-term disability (total absence or sporadic absence), employer’s rights dependent on right kind of medical information, and upon having discharged, procedurally and substantively, duty of accommodation