Immigrant Workers’ Access to Compensation for Workplace
Injuries or Illnesses “Should I Stay or Should I Go?”
Metropolis Presents: Policy-Research Seminar on Temporary MigrationMarch 12, 2008, Ottawa, Ontario
Sylvie Gravel, Ph.D., Professor
École des sciences de la gestion, organisation ressources humaines, UQAM
Refusede
Refused
Accepted5b.2- Commission des lésionsprofessionnelles (CLP)
5b.3- Superior Court
4b.1- Refusal / description of facts4b.2- Refusal / diagnosis4b.3- Refusal / work-injury link 4b.4- Refusal / rehabilitation4b.5- Refusal / functional limitation4b.6- Refusal / consolidation4b.7- Refusal / return to work
5b.1- Challenge: administrative review division
Accepted
AcceptedRefused
6a- Return to work:
• Same work• Same employer• Adapted position• Suitable position
7.1- Did not returnto work
• Disability
7.2- Did not returnto work
• EI• Income security• Dependence on
family
4a- Rehabilitation
• Medical• Psychosocial• Vocational
5a- Consolidation
1- Report
3a - Accepted
2- Claim
3b- Refused
Logical model of the administrative compensation process in Quebec
Worker’s personal situation
Difficulties in medicalconsultations
Difficulties in Administrative procedures
Difficulties in legalconsultations
Compensation
Difficultiesreintegratinginto theworkplace
OHS workplace conditions
Human problems
Causal relationship
Influence
Cause of injury
Barriers to compensation encountered by immigrant workers
Sample and analyses
104 workers 51 NON-immigrants
53 immigrants
1. Analysis of matches
2. Taxonomy
4. Lexicologicalanalysis
Claim forms 67 workers and employers
23 workers
14 none
3. Case studies 10 most difficult cases
Two interviews
Third interview
53% men, 47% womenAll having claimed compensation for MSIsRecruitment: 3 partners (OHS medical clinic, legal research office, NGO for workers’ rights)
104 workers
51 NON-immigrants53 immigrants
2 claim interviews
104 workers Evaluation of difficulty scores
Sample
10 cases 3rd interview
Worst cases
Results: Difficulties in medical consultations
Immigrant workers have more Inaccurate diagnoses (64% vs. 42%)
(p=0.08) Difficulties being understood during the
medical examination (23% vs. 20%) (p=0.017)
Medical and psychological complications (NS)
Results: Difficulties with administrative procedures
Immigrant workers Use a third person to draw up their
claims (58% vs. 8%) (p= 0.04)
File their claims late (32% vs. 24%) (p=0.05) (Allophones) do not understand the
administrative procedures (65% vs. 62%) (NS)
Do not understand the decisions (58% vs.
50%) or the correspondence from the compensation agency (49% vs. 42%) (NS)
Results: Difficulties with legal consultations
Immigrant workers Have a higher rate of refusal (52% vs. 24%)
(p=0.08) Are more often challenged by their
employers (64% vs. 24%) (p= 0.09)
Appeal the decision rendered less often (55% vs. 62%) (p= 0.7)
Results: Difficulties upon returning to workImmigrant workers Do not benefit from a gradual return or
from a lighter workload (66% vs. 41%) (p=0.06)
Are frequently dismissed after their injury or illness (74% vs. 62%) (p=0.05)
Results:Group analysisTaxonomy Immigrant
(53)Non–
immigrant
(51)Workers who did not exercise their right of recourse (n=31)
74%(23)
26%(8)
Workers who were overwhelmed by the situation (n=5)
40%( 2)
60%( 3)
Workers who were compensated but then fired or laid off (n= 45)
42%(19)
58%(26)
Workers who were compensated without encountering pitfalls (n=23)
39%(9)
61%(14)
Results: Case studies
Of the immigrant workers who experienced particularly difficult compensation procedures:
10/10 were dismissed because of a decrease in productivity
9/10 have been unemployed since they were dismissed
6/10 were subject to an incomplete or contradictory medical examination
Lexicological analysis of claims(SCAN method)
Analysis of the quality of incident descriptions in claims
Number of words (no result) Number of errors (no result) Number of segments: incident, pain,
situation, movement, load, and presence of witnesses (no result)
Comparison of employee and employer versions: similar, same meaning, contradictory, identical (of concern)
Lexicological analysisComplete / incomplete report
“I fell off the ladder while holding the sign while my co-worker was in the truck. I don’t know what happened, whether the ladder slipped or a pedestrian knocked it. When I fell on my right shoulder, I felt a sharp pain that spread to my back.”
Possible segments: incident, pain, situation, movement, load, and presence of witnesses
Refusal rate for identical / non-identical reports
Employer / employee versions
Accepted Refused Total
Identical13
(50%)(33%)
13(50%)(54%)
26(100%)(41%)
Non-identical
27(71%)(67%)
11(29%)(46%)
38(100%)(59%)
Total40
(65%)24
(34%)64
(100%)
Conclusion
Poorly consolidated or uncompensated workplace injuries or illnesses result in accelerated deterioration of immigrant workers’ physical and mental health,
loss of skills, lower productivity,dismissal, and
an unemployed worker losing his or her skills
Social and health inequalities
that lead to poverty
Develop skills and abilities
Immigrate
Enter the labour market
Sustain an injury
Report the injury
Claim compensation
Relyon
abilities
Curtail abilities
Lose / use
abilities
Receive no compensation
or not enough compensation
Be involvedin
economic growth
Meet achievement needs
Earn an income
Income security
No income
Receive compensation without encountering any pitfalls
Return to work
Receivefair
treatment
Be dismissed
Receive compensation
Work income
Reflection: Compensation of immigrant workers and ethics of the economic development
in employer countries of a transnational workforce
Sen
’s
theo
ries
Com
pens
atio
n of
w
orkp
lace
inju
ries
Maintain worker status
Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage 5
Top Related