Changes likely to mean more scrutiny on employers
In the old work reintegration system in Ontario, a representative from the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) might call an employer after a worker had an employment-related injury and ask if there was suitable work available for her.
If an employer said no, that might be the last they heard about reintegrating the employee back into the workplace.
But since sweeping changes have taken place at the Ontario board, that’s not likely to be the case anymore.
“The bottom line… basically under the old system the reality was that there was not a lot of scrutiny put on an employer by the WSIB when there was a situation where there was an employee with a long-term claim and they were considering whether the worker should be trained to do something else,” said Ryan Conlin, a partner at law firm Stringer Brisbin Humphrey in Toronto.
Before, a bureaucrat would phone the employer and ask if they had any work, the employer would say no and “that would be about the end of it,” Conlin said.
Under the new system the board is going to be approaching employers to get workers who have long-term claims back to work with the original employer, he said.
The board is looking at older claims, not just recent injuries, said Conlin, adding he has seen clients that have been approached with cases that have had no activity on them and are three or four years old.
And the board is not just examining whether there is a position available at the company; they have also been asking employers if there is any combination of duties that can be put together or bundled to establish a permanent accommodation, he said.
They are also doing more research with their follow up. One client of Conlin’s had indicated to the board no work was available at the company, but the board found a position on a job website and followed up with the employer again.
“So there’s been a bit more follow up than there used to be,” he said.
Changes at the WSIB come as a result of 12 years of constantly deteriorating return-to-work outcomes and increased costs, said Judy Geary, vice-president of work reintegration at the WSIB.
“Employers expressed concern about rising costs of the program and frustration at not being given adequate help from the WSIB and their sense that we were just not doing a good enough job,” she said.
The board spent a year analyzing what the contributing factors were for decreasing success at return to work outcomes.
The most significant was a big change in 1998. At that time, there were changes to legislation, service delivery models, policies and the structure within the organization. There was a shift from the board being actively involved in return-to-work to a self-reliance model where workplace parties were expected to manage return-to-work on their own, said Geary.
“In a way WSIB kind of left of the field of return to work and vocational rehabilitation,” she said.
What used to happen was that employers and employees were left pretty much on their own to figure out the return-to-work process and this didn’t always work out as well, she said.
“Many injured workers ended up losing their employment with their injury employer because there wasn’t enough help being given to them to accommodate and find suitable work for the injured worker to return to,” she said.
For employers the new program will mean increased support for return-to-work activities in the workplace. The board will be providing more on site, hands on return to work planning, co-ordination and helping to retrain injured workers for other positions within the company if necessary, she said.
If a worker could not be accommodated by the injury employer they were sent for retraining to get back into the open labour market. This process was handled by a third party, but now it will be controlled by the WSIB, she said.
“The employer became disconnected, the inured worker was being serviced by people outside of the WSIB, so the communications and processes were quite fragmented,” she said.
Now the WSIB will become involved in cases much earlier, at 12 weeks for return-to-work co-ordination services. If that does not work then the WSIB will start work transition services in six months, a process that used to take almost two years, she said.
Features of the program have changed. Injured workers have more input into what their plans are. There are more practical options, including short-term vocational programs, said Geary.
“So they’re going to get increased quality of training, more credible credentials and a lot more support to actually help to find work if they’re not returning to work with their injury employer,” she said.
For employers, the increased emphasis on having an employee go back to the injury employer could mean legal questions about whether the employer is obligated to accommodate a former employee based on legislation and time elapsed since the injury, said Conlin.
“Employers should be aware that there is going to be litigation undoubtedly,” he said.
Employers should be honest when the board calls. If there are positions available the employer should have physical demands analysis reports available that clearly indicate the nature of the work so the board can assess whether the work is suitable.
Employers should also seek legal counsel if they are asked to create a position and should be prepared to explain why creating a position would not be productive or reasonable, said Conlin.
But the changes with the program are expected to reduce costs of the compensation system quite significantly over the next five years, said Geary.
“So that should be welcome news to employers,” she said.
If an employer said no, that might be the last they heard about reintegrating the employee back into the workplace.
But since sweeping changes have taken place at the Ontario board, that’s not likely to be the case anymore.
“The bottom line… basically under the old system the reality was that there was not a lot of scrutiny put on an employer by the WSIB when there was a situation where there was an employee with a long-term claim and they were considering whether the worker should be trained to do something else,” said Ryan Conlin, a partner at law firm Stringer Brisbin Humphrey in Toronto.
Before, a bureaucrat would phone the employer and ask if they had any work, the employer would say no and “that would be about the end of it,” Conlin said.
Under the new system the board is going to be approaching employers to get workers who have long-term claims back to work with the original employer, he said.
The board is looking at older claims, not just recent injuries, said Conlin, adding he has seen clients that have been approached with cases that have had no activity on them and are three or four years old.
And the board is not just examining whether there is a position available at the company; they have also been asking employers if there is any combination of duties that can be put together or bundled to establish a permanent accommodation, he said.
They are also doing more research with their follow up. One client of Conlin’s had indicated to the board no work was available at the company, but the board found a position on a job website and followed up with the employer again.
“So there’s been a bit more follow up than there used to be,” he said.
Changes at the WSIB come as a result of 12 years of constantly deteriorating return-to-work outcomes and increased costs, said Judy Geary, vice-president of work reintegration at the WSIB.
“Employers expressed concern about rising costs of the program and frustration at not being given adequate help from the WSIB and their sense that we were just not doing a good enough job,” she said.
The board spent a year analyzing what the contributing factors were for decreasing success at return to work outcomes.
The most significant was a big change in 1998. At that time, there were changes to legislation, service delivery models, policies and the structure within the organization. There was a shift from the board being actively involved in return-to-work to a self-reliance model where workplace parties were expected to manage return-to-work on their own, said Geary.
“In a way WSIB kind of left of the field of return to work and vocational rehabilitation,” she said.
What used to happen was that employers and employees were left pretty much on their own to figure out the return-to-work process and this didn’t always work out as well, she said.
“Many injured workers ended up losing their employment with their injury employer because there wasn’t enough help being given to them to accommodate and find suitable work for the injured worker to return to,” she said.
For employers the new program will mean increased support for return-to-work activities in the workplace. The board will be providing more on site, hands on return to work planning, co-ordination and helping to retrain injured workers for other positions within the company if necessary, she said.
If a worker could not be accommodated by the injury employer they were sent for retraining to get back into the open labour market. This process was handled by a third party, but now it will be controlled by the WSIB, she said.
“The employer became disconnected, the inured worker was being serviced by people outside of the WSIB, so the communications and processes were quite fragmented,” she said.
Now the WSIB will become involved in cases much earlier, at 12 weeks for return-to-work co-ordination services. If that does not work then the WSIB will start work transition services in six months, a process that used to take almost two years, she said.
Features of the program have changed. Injured workers have more input into what their plans are. There are more practical options, including short-term vocational programs, said Geary.
“So they’re going to get increased quality of training, more credible credentials and a lot more support to actually help to find work if they’re not returning to work with their injury employer,” she said.
For employers, the increased emphasis on having an employee go back to the injury employer could mean legal questions about whether the employer is obligated to accommodate a former employee based on legislation and time elapsed since the injury, said Conlin.
“Employers should be aware that there is going to be litigation undoubtedly,” he said.
Employers should be honest when the board calls. If there are positions available the employer should have physical demands analysis reports available that clearly indicate the nature of the work so the board can assess whether the work is suitable.
Employers should also seek legal counsel if they are asked to create a position and should be prepared to explain why creating a position would not be productive or reasonable, said Conlin.
But the changes with the program are expected to reduce costs of the compensation system quite significantly over the next five years, said Geary.
“So that should be welcome news to employers,” she said.
