Findings

Findings specifically related to re-employment and vocational rehabilitation are presented first, followed by other issues raised by the injured workers with significant disabilities who participated in this study.

“When I was first hurt, I thought they [pre-injury employer] had to take you back. But then I found out they didn’t have to.”

“I want to go back to work. They’ve got a return to work policy at work, and they’re not doing anything.”

Once their injuries had stabilized, more than half of the participants attempted to return to the employers for whom they were working at the time of their injuries. Three to five were successful, but the majority were not. Even amongst the small number who succeeded in returning to their pre-injury employers, most had to overcome substantial barriers along the way, or were dissatisfied with the way their employers had accommodated them.

“The problem with the job I’m in right now is that it’s going absolutely nowhere, other than sitting on that chair until they carry me out. It’s a dead-end job.”

More than half of the injured workers who participated in the study felt that their employers were not willing to provide satisfactory accommodations, modified duties, or alternative employment. More than half of the participants who were not successful in returning to stable employment with their pre-injury employers reported that their employers either declined to re-employ them—often stating that no suitable work was available—or provided accommodations that proved to be unsuitable. Three to five participants shared their employers’ beliefs that they could not be accommodated in their pre-injury workplaces, but more than half felt that their employers could accommodate them.

Three to five participants reported that they felt their employers had had suitable positions available, but had declined making them available to the participants. Three to five participants felt that other injured co-workers—especially relatives of owners/managers and favoured employees—had been accommodated with suitable positions.

“They have light duties for certain people, but not for other people.”

Three to five participants believed that their employers sabotaged their return to work, either by insisting the injured workers do their pre-injury jobs/duties, by providing alternative positions that exceeded the injured workers’ physical restrictions, or by providing alternative positions the injured workers felt demeaning.

One participant’s employer offered him a position he felt was satisfactory. But his union was not involved in the decision to make the position available to him, and he lost the position when his union representative discovered him working in the job.

“They [employer] tried to be underhanded and didn’t talk to the union, so that it would be the union that put me out on the street…I realized then that this company isn’t one that I want to try to bet the rest of my life on.”

Another participant was offered what he called a “baby-sitting job”.

“I agreed to it, but that just lasted [less than a month]. They pulled the position and told me I had to go back [to pre-injury job] or I wouldn’t have a job there…[Employer] told me ‘if you don’t like it, it’s too bad. If you’re here to work, you do what you’re told’…They were just trying to get me back there so their WCB premiums would go down.”

One participant told of returning to her pre-injury employer and job. Her employer accommodated her fairly well at first, but a new supervisor insisted she perform duties that were outside of her restrictions.

“I said ‘look, I cannot do this stuff.’ And [supervisor] said ‘stop being such a damn baby and get back to work.’”

She was later offered a different job she thought might be a satisfactory match for her skills and restrictions. Before she accepted it, however, she told her employer that she wanted her WCB Vocational Rehabilitation Consultant (VRC) to assess the physical requirements of the job to ensure that it would not require her to do restricted activities. Her VRC determined that the job exceeded her restrictions.

“The next day, my boss called me and said ‘what’s this I hear that you don’t want the job?’ And I said ‘I didn’t say that I don’t want the job. Compensation just has to okay it first.’ And he said ‘why the hell are you dragging Compensation into this? They have no business being involved in this.’ And I said ‘they have every right to be involved in this because this is my well-being.’ And he said ‘just forget I ever offered you the job’ and hung up.”

She was fired shortly afterwards, and is currently pursuing re-training for a new occupation provided by the WCB.

Other participants reported that their WCB VRC’s were less supportive in ensuring that employers provided suitable accommodations. Three to five indicated that their employers had suitable alternative positions the participants felt they could do, but their VRC’s steered them towards re-training.

“My VRC is backing them [employer] up, saying ‘do you really want to go back there?’ Do you think I’m ready to lose my benefits and pension if I get re-trained and go work somewhere else?…As far as I’m concerned, I’m being penalized for getting hurt. Instead of [WCB] going after them [pre-injury employer], they’re going after me, and I feel like a hostage…”

“I’ll lose all my seniority. I’ll lose my holidays. I’ll lose my benefits. I don’t think the WCB considers those things.”

“It was mostly me initiating the movement to go back to [pre-injury employer]. But Compensation was saying ‘no, go back to school. We’ll pay for it’…I’ve got [approximately 20] years of seniority. I’d rather stay with [pre-injury employer] for another 10-15 years and then retire.”

Another participant felt that the WCB should play a more active role in ensuring that pre-injury employers provide suitable accommodations when injured workers return to work.

“The WCB should be protecting you from abuse [by employer]. If they [employer] create a job for you, and [less than six months] later they get rid of you, the WCB should say ‘hold on, you have to justify why you took that man out of that job.’”

Modified Work

Three to five employed participants outside Winnipeg reported that their employers have aggressive return-to-work programs. These injured workers felt they were expected to return to work too soon, often the day after the injury.

“Everybody who’s injured goes on modified duties. Modified work is the company’s way to hide lost time accidents. They’re trying to save on what they have to pay Compensation.” ^[37]

One participant reported that his employer has a modified work program specifically for injured workers. He indicated that workers with minor injuries and skills related to the activities done in the modified work program often do productive work there, but others who have more serious injuries are sometimes paid to do nothing all day. One participant described a co-worker in the latter situation.

“He’s in the [modified work program], but he’s doing nothing. He goes to work, but does he have a job? No, he just sits there.”

Another reported that after he returned to a different position with his pre-injury employer, the employer paid him for disability-related time away from work rather than submitting claims to WCB. ^[38] When he was subsequently laid off, he had difficulty renewing his claim because the WCB had no record of him having any disability-related time away from work following his return to his pre-injury employer. He challenged this decision, and was satisfied with the WCB’s reassessment of the claim and subsequent provision of vocational rehabilitation services. His current employer is also continuing to pay his full salary rather than reporting lost time to the WCB, primarily because he would have to see a doctor each time he misses work.

“WCB said ‘we’ll pay your employer for the days you miss, but you’ve gotta go see the doctor every day you’re off work.’ So I’d be tying up some doctor who’ll just write ‘yes, he’s having [disability-related problem]’ anyway. And you can’t see a doctor here the same day, so I’d be missing more time off work going to see a doctor a day or two later [when problem may no longer be present].”

Two participants described injury report forms with three questions about modified work (is it available? has it been offered? has the worker accepted it?). When their employers provide modified work, study participants reported that injured workers have no alternative but to accept it. ^[39]

These participants also felt that the Workers Compensation Board does not adequately monitor these return-to-work programs.

“If you don’t go [to modified work program], Compensation will cut you off. They [WCB] don’t keep an eye on what’s going on. They [company] don’t have to get [WCB’s] approval.”