Various CSSEA members engaging in Return to Work (RTW) processes with injured or sick employees have been in touch with the CSSEA Early Intervention Program Coordinator to address some of the more challenging issues they are facing. What follows is a compilation of some common challenges expressed by members, as well as recommended solutions.
Challenge: When an employee goes on a leave (whether lengthy sick leave or WorkSafeBC (WSBC) injury) they do not understand the procedures that they must follow. This creates confusion, delay and interferes with proper participation in the CSSEIP and WSBC protocols.
Recommendation: Communication to staff before they might experience a leave is critical. Agencies are encouraged to communicate their attendance management, disability management (CSSEIP) and RTW policies and procedures when employees are hired, and annually thereafter as a reminder.
Should an employee take a leave, the same information, or a summary of key responsibilities, can then be forwarded to them to ensure that they are reminded of what is expected of them. This will support employees to consistently comply with agency sick and injury reporting procedures, understand that a disability management provider will be contacting them shortly after their leave commences and that cooperation is required both on intake to the EIP and with RTW plans.
With policies and procedures being provided to employees annually, or as needed based on leaves taken, it will also be a reminder to your agency’s lead who is responsible for disability management practices to regularly review and update these agency documents. In the review process, ensure that there are opportunities for input from staff, your health and safety committee and the union to cultivate a collaborative culture and buy-in to these processes.
Challenge: There is some confusion over who is responsible for managing claims and RTW processes. Who takes the lead on this: the benefit service/disability management (DM) provider, WSBC, the medical practitioner or employer?
Recommendation: The employer should be taking the lead on all absences and RTW processes by appointing a lead responsible for oversight of all absences, and following up with the various service providers to ensure that they are working collaboratively and in a timely manner on both case management and RTW plans. The appointment of a lead is further rooted in the recent amendments to the Workers Compensation Act that added a legal duty for employers and employees to cooperate in the employee’s early and safe return to work (Bill 41). The employer lead would continue to have oversight on leaves and contact as necessary (or regularly) with the disability management case manager on the status of employees on leave, and the coordination of RTW processes. This will also assist in the employer having a consistent approach to all RTW processes, and reduce fragmentation in having too many participants operating independently in an employee’s RTW plan, contributing to confusion over what a safe and sustainable RTW plan looks like.
Challenge: Sometimes RTW plans are established, implemented, but then fail. This results in the employee returning to their leave status and the RTW planning process starting over again.
Recommendation: Always consider contingency plans up front, in the event of failure. At the very least, this can be accomplished by developing a list of activities upon RTW that the employee can do that might be beyond what the first RTW plan outlines. The list would focus on what the employee “can do” versus what they are “not able to do.” Having a prepared list may enable employers to pivot more quickly to alternative duties that can be performed in the RTW period. Taking time to proactively anticipate reasonable challenges and alternative duties will directly contribute to a more continuous and sustainable RTW outcome. Regular monitoring check-ins are recommended as part of the RTW plan, to ensure there is a capability to predict and respond to challenges faced, and pivot as necessary.
On a related point, ensure that all parties (eg. WSBC, DM provider, employee, employer, union) sign off on the written RTW Plan (inclusive of alternative duties) prior to commencement and upon completion. In the event the RTW Plan requires a modification or extension, have all parties sign the amendment again prior to the amendment being implemented and upon completion.
Challenge: There is some pressure to establish RTW plans on a supernumerary, or excess of the usual number, basis and this is presenting a challenge to budgets. When is it appropriate to establish a supernumerary RTW Plan?
Recommendation: Supernumerary RTW plans are not required by WorkSafeBC. As they are voluntary plans, they may be implemented at the discretion of the employer. WSBC is not required to approve (or participate in) in these arrangements. If an employer does establish such a plan, it would need to pay for it. However, before entertaining the prospect of a supernumerary RTW plan, employers must satisfy their obligations under Bill 41, which means that reasonable efforts should be made to find established or modified roles that are vacant, and place employees in those roles that they can functionally perform. These roles would otherwise be paid roles that other employees would occupy. The joint OHS committee and union should be involved in exploring these types of placements into vacancies, and ultimately if after discussion there is no placement, the employer’s obligations would be satisfied.
For More Information
Satvinder Basran, CSSEA’s EIP Coordinator, remains available to support employers with these challenges and more, including facilitating communications with your disability management provider on processes and specific cases. Satvinder can also assist with complex RTW plans. Please see this Information Update for an outline of the services the Coordinator provides. If you have further questions, please contact Satvinder at: sbasran@cssea.bc.ca or 604.601.3127.
For more information, consult the CSSEIP webpage for more resources on the Early Intervention Program.