Download to read offline
Uploaded byJim Puckalo
ASMP concerns
The document summarizes concerns about the lack of training, technical delays, biased documentation, and inconsistencies with the ASMP policy. It notes that a lack of proper training across the organization has negatively impacted employees who did not understand the policy and their rights. Technical delays with the new AMTS system caused unnecessary multi-level meetings for employees. The employer's documentation of the policy is biased and does not properly emphasize employees' rights to have absences precluded, instead focusing on potential disciplinary outcomes. These issues show the employer was not ready to properly implement the policy.
ASMP concerns
- 1. ASMP Concerns What WeHave Seen and Heard Regarding This Policy
- 2. BACKGROUND The history ofthis attendance process has been reiterated and promoted across the OPS since April 1st, 2015 The way it is being promoted is to portray it as being “accepted” and “effective” among those who were the first to experience it This presentation will explore some history but concentrate on the issues of today.
- 3. BACKGROUND When this wasintroduced to the OPS it was through the Corrections group. It was part of an agreement in their CA which bargained monetary compensation as a key piece to have it adopted. There was money paid to Corrections members to “reward” them when meeting reduced absenteeism targets.
- 4. BACKGROUND The current versionof the program is not supported by a monetary compensation component. A main reason for that is that it created a poisoned work environment as the “reward” was based on improved attendance numbers for the group, not individuals. Members were upset when others were using $ick day$.
- 5. MAIN ISSUES • Lackof Training • Technical delays for ATS caused unnecessary delays for level meetings • Those delays caused far too many combined level meetings • Documentation is biased and unfair • Inconsistent use of process • DASs are inconsistent (included in above section)
- 6. Those points listedwill be covered as we go through this material. This will be a brief review (in terms of details shared) of the ASMP in order to show where areas of concern are and briefly, why. What will be shared will be concerns raised within Local 468, which are consistent with other locals as well. Additional documents will be shared which provide more detail.
- 7. LACK of TRAINING “Wedon’t know – what we don’t know” (a quote from an OPS Privacy Office document) That quote applies to every OPS member who has not received the oft documented/mentioned OPS wide training for ASMP. Where is that training?
- 8. LACK of TRAINING EmployeePresentation - Slide 10 AMP Purpose and Principles > Key principles – last bullet point: “Organizational training and support is critical in developing manager capacity to effectively manage employee attendance.” What can be more clear than this, that there has to be OPS Wide (organizational) training? The statement also indicates that it is “critical” because without it, the program does not work “effectively”. And no, not just for managers.
- 9. LACK of TRAINING Tofollow on that thought – the complexity of this program, and the fact that it has obligations, rights and entitlements, demands that all employees need to be aware of: • What it is • How it works • How it impacts them . . .
- 10. LACK of TRAINING Thatknowledge can only be obtained through proper OPS-wide training. 30 to 60 minute info sessions will not do. The occasional piece delivered via email and buried among other messages will not do either, Nor will a 45 minute to 1 hour Webinar suffice as “training” Info pieces we receive are not training.
- 11. LACK of TRAINING Whenthe employer wants to be able to hold us accountable for violating a policy, they ensure that we are aware of that policy in the form of MANDATORY training. Not info sessions or emails. Sign-up, log-in, sign-in training where you HAVE to confirm that you have completed it.
- 12. LACK of TRAINING Thereare 12 or 13 mandatory OPS wide training courses. ASMP is not one of them. Because it may result in “termination of employment”, ask yourself where would you rank it on the list as a must take course? Ask your co-workers and employees where they would rank it?
- 13. LACK of TRAINING Lackof training is impacting our members. In 15 ASMP level(s) meetings to date, employees did not know what was going on or how they could be helped. In all but two of those situations the employees were able to get suitable medical info to make at least one of the meetings unnecessary.
- 14. LACK of TRAINING Inat least half of those 15 meetings, they were for multiple levels. In almost every multiple level meeting, there was a two month or more gap between the progression into levels. A lack of due diligence by the employer. We have been successful in arguing against holding multiple level meetings as it disadvantages the employee.
- 15. LACK of TRAINING Themain reasons why it disadvantages employees is that: • it violates the expressly stated right to exercise the voluntary option at either of Levels 1, 2 or 3 when meetings are combined. • it denies employees the opportunity to learn more about ASMP and it denies them the Fair and Consistent treatment the employer keeps promoting.
- 16. TECHNICAL DELAYS ForAMTS AMTS – Attendance Management Tracking System is a new piece added onto WIN last fall. The purpose of AMTS is to be the controller for the Attendance Management Policy and to provide information, reports and reminders to management as thresholds are exceeded or milestones passed in regard to attendance.
- 17. TECHNICAL DELAYS ForAMTS • The AMTS component went live in October (?) of 2015. • Many of our members passed a level threshold - 1, 2, 3 and even 4 months before that, without a meeting being scheduled. • Beginning in November of 2015, employees began to get meeting requests from their managers, most were for multi-level meetings.
- 18. TECHNICAL DELAYS ForAMTS • When asked why the delay, most managers did respond that they only recently became aware of the employee’s status in regard to ASMP • Two managers were honest and said that it was only after AMTS came online that they were getting the reminders to inform employees that a meeting would be scheduled.
- 19. TECHNICAL DELAYS ForAMTS • The employer’s laissez-faire acceptance of the delays in having level meetings and the insistence of the DASs who were asked about this, that under ASMP, multi level meetings were acceptable, greatly disadvantaged employees as stated in slide number 15. • Timeliness is not a consistent concept.
- 20. TECHNICAL DELAYS ForAMTS • The mere fact that the employer instituted ASMP across the OPS knowing that the AMTS was not ready nor would it be for over 6 more months was disrespectful and harmful to all employees. • The situations this created for employees was counter to the professed claim of being supportive.
- 21. TECHNICAL DELAYS ForAMTS These two issues alone, lack of training and the AMTS delay, show that the employer was not ready to implement the policy April 1st 2015, yet in spite of the concerns that should have been apparent, they went ahead without concern for due diligence. This was SAMS all over again.
- 22. BIASED DOCUMENTATION Employee Presentation- Slide 8 DAP Key Employee Responsibilities - bullet point 4: • “Accept the EA solutions that meet the employee’s accommodation needs and treat the employee with dignity, even if the solution is not “perfect” or is not the employee’s preference”
- 23. BIASED DOCUMENTATION What thatquote from the employer provided ASMP presentation states ,is that an employee must accept an accommodation “even if the solution is not “perfect” or is not the employee’s preference”. What it does not share is that at times the employer will have to accept accommodations as well, even if it is not their preferred one.
- 24. BIASED DOCUMENTATION The wholeprogram is supposed to be all about the OPS employee impacted by this. What is the most important thing for any OPS member to know in regard to this program and their attendance? How it can help them or how it will not impact them. Simply put – Preclusion.
- 25. BIASED DOCUMENTATION What doesthe employer present in their documentation before mentioning that? • The “success” of this program starting in 2009. What they do not share is that that original pilot included a financial incentive piece that this current incarnation is lacking. Of course rewarding people to not stay home sick financially works.
- 26. BIASED DOCUMENTATION • Theemployer states “The key change to the ASMP from the original program is the trigger for entering Level 1 and progressing through the levels of the program.”. I am sure that any of us who would like our good attendance to be rewarded would disagree with this statement.
- 27. BIASED DOCUMENTATION • Theemployer shares, “Each time an employee triggers into a new level, he/she will have a meeting with his/her manager and/or employer representative(s). The purpose of the meeting is to advise the employee that his/her non-culpable absenteeism is a concern and to offer support. It is a proactive step in helping employees overcome difficulties with maintaining regular attendance at work.”
- 28. BIASED DOCUMENTATION • ifyou want to be “proactive” as indicated above, let the individual know this information or confirm that they know and understand it – before they enter any level. That would be “supportive”. That would be “fair”. • The way it is described now (and is implemented) is reactionary, not proactive.
- 29. BIASED DOCUMENTATION • Weare only at page 3 of the guide and this bombshell is dropped on the reader, “Ultimately, the employer will take appropriate action in order to address excessive absenteeism which could result in the termination of employment.”. • This statement most certainly is not an example of being “supportive”.
- 30. BIASED DOCUMENTATION • Beforesharing any information about preclusion the document goes on to make statements as to “Purpose”, “Human Rights Considerations”, “W.S.I.B.” and “L.T.I.P.” as well as information on WDHP and support that management has in the decision making process from HR and Disability Accommodation Specialists.
- 31. BIASED DOCUMENTATION • Thelast paragraph on page 4 mentions having absences “precluded” in line two and in the last line mentions having absences considered for preclusion. • PRECLUSION is a major piece of this program and should not be “inserted” in this document at this point without a heading that clearly indicates where the information can be found.
- 32. BIASED DOCUMENTATION • Bundlinghas it’s own section and a prominent Header, why does Preclusion not get the same recognition and treatment? It is more important to everyone as an option. • Ask anyone with an absence that can be or has been precluded and see if they felt this was presented in a “supportive” and meaningful way.
- 33. BIASED DOCUMENTATION • Theguide has a definitions piece starting on page 6. • How is it that in this section important terms such as preclusion, bundling and more importantly disability are not included in this information? • It is obvious from this and so much more, that the employer wants to avoid having employees use preclusion as is their right.
- 34. BIASED DOCUMENTATION With twoplus years of experience with this program, I can honestly state that not much after the mention of “termination of employment” sinks in for people I have talked to. The employer has introduced a fear factor to redirect the attention of the reader and it works.
- 35. BIASED DOCUMENTATION This hasimpacted our members on several levels. • Many who are entitled to have absences precluded are not aware of what it is or that it is possible. • Members who should not be at work are coming in sick or forgoing necessary medical treatment to avoid having absences count against them.
- 36. BIASED DOCUMENTATION • Wehave experienced many situations where employees are unwilling to even discuss their medical concerns with the employer for fear of getting “terminated” after reading this piece. • Sounds of “apparently not-well” employees in the workplace have increased. I would have said “sick” employees, but I am not trained to make that diagnosis.
- 37. BIASED DOCUMENTATION • Conversationsthat do get around to how absences can be dealt with usually include info about the benefits of bundling. Preclusion is rarely brought up as an option by either managers or the DAS who is involved. • Documentation shared on this does not present information in a manner that is supportive but it is clinical in the details.
- 38. BIASED DOCUMENTATION • Fromthe ASMP Guide – page 14, Program Responsibilities – Employee, item #6 it says: “Attend to any personal affairs and obligations during personal time.” What if this is not possible? Why not add at the end “if possible”? Where is the definition of “personal affairs” and “obligations”?
- 39. BIASED DOCUMENTATION • Makingsuch a broad statement is misleading and can be a contravention of the Human Rights Code if the affairs or obligations are medical or family (parental) related which do have a level of protection under the code. Why is this not mentioned? • Members have been negatively impacted because of this point.
- 40. BIASED DOCUMENTATION • Fromthe ASMP Guide – page 14, Program Responsibilities – Employee, item #8 it says: “Provide health information in accordance with this guide, policies, applicable collective agreements or as directed by the employer.” This should also state “as is consistent with all Privacy Legislation”. That is too important to omit from this directive.
- 41. BIASED DOCUMENTATION • Inregard to the matter of privacy rights, that topic is hardly covered at all and the employee is left to presume the burden is upon them to find out what their rights are. • Firsthand experience has shown that in some situations where issues of rights are important, the full disclosure to employees does not happen.
- 42. INCONSISTENT USE ofPROCESS Disability Accommodation Specialist position new to the OPS. The first were hired in late 2014. Experience in dealing with those who are a DAS since the ASMP was implemented OPS wide has shown that they are not equal and that they do not all have the same level of understanding required policies and ASMP.
- 43. INCONSISTENT USE ofPROCESS One steward asked two DASs the same question: If I have had no previous absences and I am off because of necessary surgery and the doctor has “ordered” in a note that I stay off work for two weeks after the surgery, how is that absence handled?
- 44. INCONSISTENT USE ofPROCESS Two different responses were given and in one case, the DAS refused to accept that an employee who has had surgery can be considered to have a temporary disability. Eventually they both got around to saying the absences may be bundled if documentation was provided.
- 45. INCONSISTENT USE ofPROCESS But they did not agree on how the absence would impact the status of the employee in regard to ASMP. One stated that the bundle would be one occurrence and that was it. The other stated that even though bundled, the first 8 days of that absence would trigger a move into level 1 of the program.
- 46. INCONSISTENT USE ofPROCESS But that took about five email exchanges and many more questions to arrive at. From these exchanges and many others a common theme emerges. Notes provided by doctors and other medical practitioners are generally inadequate. When asked why, the response usually is:
- 47. INCONSISTENT USE ofPROCESS The note does not state that you have a “disability” as defined under the Human Rights Code. Medical Practitioners struggle with this concern and in support of their dilemma I remind you that in several key documents the employer does not even include a definition. What is it that you are not sharing?
- 48. INCONSISTENT USE ofPROCESS Even when HIF documents are sent to the practitioners and questions posed about disability, that definition is not included. Why? The employer in regard to dealing with disabilities puts up a barrier to accommodation by not sharing their understanding of what a disability is.
- 49. INCONSISTENT USE ofPROCESS In a case that went to the Supreme Court of Canada regarding medical information being requested or evaluated by the employer, Justice Shore wrote in part: “. . . If the employer is dissatisfied with these other options, including and in particular a medical certificate tendered by the employee, it has the duty to clearly explain to the employee or state the reasons why the information is insufficient. Again, this respects the employee’s rights to privacy and allows him or her to assess the employer’s objections and produce other information if needed.”
- 50. INCONSISTENT USE ofPROCESS From that I hope you can see that just stating to an employee: • Not good enough • It does not state your restrictions • It does not state you have a disability • I need you to take a HIF for your doctor to complete Will not suffice.
- 51. INCONSISTENT USE ofPROCESS What is also of concern here is that many times where an employee provides a note that supports a reason to accept their claim for relief under ASMP, it provides information that crosses over into the duty to accommodate and the Disability Accommodation process. There are inconsistencies and errors made in that related process as well.
- 52. INCONSISTENT USE ofPROCESS Only once in about forty times where I have assisted members, when they provided a medical note to the manager and it had indications of what the practitioner deemed to be necessary accommodation, did the employer engage the employee before proceeding to address the content of the note.
- 53. INCONSISTENT USE ofPROCESS • The submission of such a note triggers the DA process. • That policy clearly states the employee is to be a part of the process • The evaluation the employer makes is their obligated step. • Discussing with the employee what would or could happen next must take place before going any further. (see slide 49)
- 54. INCONSISTENT USE ofPROCESS • Not involving the employee as described above reduces them to a “gofer” role in the process and an opportunity to gain understanding possible further insight is lost. • This leads to the creation of questions and forms that do not really address the issues because an effort was not made to understand what they really are.
- 55. INCONSISTENT USE ofPROCESS • This also introduces delays into the process which can an often do lead to increased unnecessary pain and suffering by the employee • This clearly is not what I hope the employer has in mind when talking about being supportive.
- 56. It is mygoal that the promises made of support and participation of the employee in medically related situations through programs and policy are fully met. I expect that it will be mandatory for a meeting to take place anytime a medical note is provided to the employer, regardless of whether or not the employer decides that more information is needed.
- 57. The purpose ofthat meeting is to recognize the needs and rights of the employee, including having a full understanding of how decisions made will impact them at work.
Editor's Notes
- #2 This presentation is intended to share from a “local” perspective what issues we have encountered due to the roll-out and administration of this on April 1st, 2015.
- #4 The employer takes great pains in the ASMP Guide – Introduction, to make it seem like everything is roses with this program. As stated in that introduction there has been a progression from the initial pilot in Corrections on into other ministries. But to even expect us to believe that the program was a success just because if what was written and enforced is ludicrous. What was also not shared about the pay for attendance part of the corrections pilot was that yes it helped improve attendance, but it was at great cost, since it was not an “individual” reward system but a group one. This program was introduced into the high-stress, high health concerns ministry to help curb absences not by making people better and able to work, but by paying them to ignore warning signs of illness and injury for additional compensation. It also created an environment where those in the various impacted groups would try to influence co-workers to be in attendance at work and not deprive everyone of the various levels of bonuses that were made available. This did more harm than good in that it created a poisoned work environment where those who had legitimate health concerns were harassed by co-workers about any time off they had to take.
- #5 As time went on there were additional ministries added but if a poll of the employees were to be taken I am sure that they would have an entirely different opinion as to the “success” of this program. Much like the various bought and paid for “Top Employer” designations the employer has, they are the result of self promotion and not actual reflections of fact.
- #7 I have also been given information from a few other MOH locals, including one in Toronto.
- #8 From an employer produced document I saw recently from the Privacy Office on how they can improve. It said in regard to information and applying it: “We don’t know – what we don’t know” And that was explained as, unless the proper and most effective channel of information sharing is used, you cannot know that which you are supposed to know if you don’t know what you are supposed to know. The employer has said it and I agree.
- #10 Even after a two day training event for managers of my branch, many came back and shared that they still were not sure that they had a good grasp of what this program is all about. If managers cannot be sure that they understand it after two full days of training how can employees be expected to know it with no instructor led training, info pieces that show up buried in emails and access to an online module geared towards the needs and use of management which was made difficult to find and never clearly identified as for all employees?
- #11 The employer has distributed through the OPS e-mail system at least fourteen messages with references to the ASMP. In at least half of those messages the item which was referred to was not readily “visible” without the need to scroll through the e-mail. This fact made it difficult - if not impossible for employees, who are doing their best to keep up with workloads that generally increase within the declining workforce, to actually know that those messages existed. Without direct management intervention in the form of stating that they will be allowed on work time to review the material, there was even less likelihood that they were read.
- #12 A list of mandatory training courses can be found on the LEARN-ON site. The process is that you need to have sign-in access, have permission to take the course, sign-in to the page for the training and of course indicate electronically that you have completed the training.
- #13 How about you? Among all the mandatory courses, where would you rate it as to the level of importance to know and understand?
- #14 Those meetings are only the ones that the local has been made aware of. As a couple of cases were in regard to members that attended meetings without representation previously we are confident that there are quite a few others we know nothing about. This information was mostly from MOH, but with some individuals who are with TBS, MCGS and MAG.
- #16 I can honestly say that employees who attended these meetings always came out of them knowing a whole lot more about ASMP than they did going into the meeting. Even after reaching a level which may not have been necessary, the knowledge they gain can help the employee possibly avoid progressing any further now that they are aware of what the program is and what it is about. That insight is invaluable, but if training had happened as indicated it should, these situations would be far less likely to exist.
- #20 In regard to timeliness the employer likes to try to impose impossible restraints on when to hand in responses to various medical requests for information and they like to say that it should be done in a timely manner. Yet that same concept of timely when put into the context of when to have meetings seems to be stretched to two, three or four months as being acceptable. How can this discrepancy be explained? It is unjustifiable.
- #21 Again I will stress that it was an irresponsible move to implement something which did not have all pieces in place and was going to cause known concerns yet was pushed ahead anyway.
- #24 I can personally attest to situations existing where the employer reps including managers were ignorant of the Disability Accommodation Policy, the required parts of Human Rights legislation and because of that the accommodation needed and deserved for an employee was denied. Yet when pressed on this through various means, some accommodations were adjusted to what they should have been, which was not the employer’ preferred or perfect choice, but the right choice.
- #25 What seems to be lost in all of the documentation, discussion and exchanges is that this whole process is in existence because people need help and in many cases are suffering. This whole program lacks compassion.
- #29 The word choices in much of the material on this program are not only misleading but as in the case above where it clearly is not proactive, it is offensive.
- #30 How could this not be seen as a bad way to do this? Clearly does it not make more sense based on those whom this is intended for and not for those who wrote it, to present it in such a way as to state: Preclusion and Bundling are available to help mitigate some absence “accounting” concerns – to benefit from these here is what you need to qualify and need to do. Based on the results of using Preclusion and Bundling where appropriate, here is how all other absences are handled. As a result of this process here is what you can expect In only the most severe cases of attendance concerns which cannot be addressed through other means (including LTIP) the employer may consider termination of employment as a necessary option. Here is everything else you need to know. Allay those fears first by giving necessary information up front.
- #31 Why delay sharing what it is that is most important to those who will be impacted when you can clearly share this later?
- #32 There is no way such a major piece of the ASMP puzzle should be hidden and not prominently shared.
- #34 This is not the only document the employer provides that does not include a definition of disability in a definitions section when clearly it is a very important term and is not clearly understood in a consistent manner by all.
- #39 As this is in relation to “attendance” which is largely impacted by medical concerns, such a statement does not acknowledge that in many cases the only time people can get the treatment, support, testing and other medical needs attended to is during business hours. All of those events listed above can and should be written into and accounted for in a medical accommodation plan. This bullet point does not acknowledge that right. This is not coming across as very “supportive” which the name of this program implies and it can be construed as creating a barrier to accommodation which can and often does include time off to attend to medical requirements.
- #40 “In Canada (Attorney General) v. Johnstone, 2014 FCA 110, the Federal Court of [41]Appeal clarified that the sorts of parental obligations that fall within the protected ground of “family status” under human rights legislation are substantive obligations that engage a parent’s legal responsibility to a child. The reasoning in Johnstone has since been accepted and applied by this Tribunal in a number of decisions”
- #41 When dealing with any medical information it is important to remember that the individual whose information that is, does have specific rights and the employer does have specific obligations. To not mention this at all was irresponsible and it can give the employees who read this the impression that they have to give the employer anything that they ask for no matter what. Couple it with the Implied possibility of termination as expressed earlier and you have a situation that is totally one-sided that should not be. And before anyone states that the employee should not know this is true, remember slide 7. We don’t know, what we don’t know. But the employer does know what it has as an obligation under legislation to know and they have an obligation to share that information. Informing employees of their rights and entitlements.
- #42 See previous slide’s notes.
- #44 A simple and straight forward question. Specifics are given: Doctor verified necessary surgery Doctor mandated two week recovery period for medical reasons No absences that fall under ASMP at this time The direction is clear – you are not to be at work, or working for those two weeks (stay off work).
- #45 Important parts of the Human Rights definition of disability are: Section 10 (1) of the Code defines “disability” as follows: “because of disability” means for the reason that the person has or has had, or is believed to have or have had, any degree of physical disability, infirmity, malformation or disfigurement that is caused by bodily injury, birth defect or illness and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing . . . . . . . an injury or disability for which benefits were claimed or received under the insurance plan established under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997 “Disability” should be interpreted in broad terms. It includes both present and past conditions, as well as a subjective component based on perception of disability . . . . Even minor illnesses or infirmities can be “disabilities,” How anyone cannot understand a doctor’s orders to avoid work while recuperating for two weeks as a temporary (any degree) disability is unfathomable. Yet they both opted to propose bundling the absences.
- #48 Ask just about any manager or Disability Accommodation Specialist (a DAS) what the “required” medical note should state in regard to identifying a disability and you will not get a straight answer. This is so wrong. Why? Because they know what they evaluate your note you submit against, to make a determination of whether or not it is acceptable. You are entitled to know that as well, so that you can be successful in “removing any barriers” to either support or accommodation for you based on the fact that you have a disability.
- #50 Ninety-nine times out of one hundred, the reaction to getting such a note is to write to the doctor for another note, without stating what was wrong with the first one. Even worse, it happens without having a discussion with the employee about why the one just received was not sufficient so that when they go back to the doctor with the new note and the doctor asks them why the other was “not good enough” they can respond with something much more helpful and productive than “I don’t know, they wouldn’t tell me.”
- #52 DASs are given responsibility for the Accommodation process as well as the ASMP. Because of the overlap in regard to information this makes sense. What seems to be at issue here is the lack of a willingness to accept medical information that is good enough to get an accommodation, not be good enough for purposes of the ASMP. Employees are providing the exact same information for ASMP that is already in their file. But the DASs want to use only that info for which the employee has paid the bill.
- #53 Taking the step of having a meeting to discuss this matter is always a good thing that can only help. Not taking the time to do this is a bad thing that can lead to other issues and complaints of failure to accommodate and discrimination based on disability. Which is the wiser course of action?
- #56 The following was shared by me with the employer in regard to “another request” for more information by telling the employee yet again, “The medical information provided to date is not clear regarding your objective medical limitations and/or restrictions. Without clear medical limitations and/or restrictions the Employer does not have sufficient information to work with you to develop an appropriate accommodation plan.” Regurgitating the info that is one more time shared below is presumptuous and can be considered inflammatory and insulting. It appears to me that the “experts” who prepared this, presume that the person whom it is directed to, has as clinical and vast a knowledge of “restrictions and limitations” as they themselves have. This is also potentially demeaning and an affront to the employee’s dignity. If those who have this knowledge and understanding are not willing to share in person with the individual whom the accommodation would be for, that too is a barrier to accommodation. Though they may be strong words from me, they are based on the feelings shared by employees who are faced with the challenges of meeting the expectations of a system that does not “clearly explain” why the efforts they have made so far are insufficient. We need to overcome this barrier.
- #58 Where information provided is unclear, it is not possible to have a more productive or suitable outcome by sending someone back to their medical practitioner without any understanding of why they are going back or what more the employer needs or wants to have in order to meet their duty to accommodate. Give the employee confidence and hope that they will be helped by providing them with clear direction and information on how they can work with their medical practitioner in order to be accommodated at work as is their right and the employer’s duty.