Review of the Attendance Support Management Program by Frank Wendling, Local 468 President, OPSEU

1. ASMP Concerns
What We Have Seen and Heard
Regarding This Policy

2. BACKGROUND
The history of this 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 was introduced 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 version of 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
• Lack of 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 listed will 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
“We don’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
Employee Presentation - 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
To follow 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
That knowledge 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
When the 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
There are 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
Lack of 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
In at 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
The main 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 For AMTS
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 For AMTS
• 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 For AMTS
• 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 For AMTS
• 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 For AMTS
• 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 For AMTS
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 that quote 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 whole program 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 does the 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
• The employer 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
• The employer 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
• if you 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
• We are 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
• Before sharing 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
• The last 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
• Bundling has 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
• The guide 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 two plus 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 has impacted 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
• We have 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
• Conversations that 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
• From the 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
• Making such 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
• From the 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
• In regard 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 of PROCESS
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 of PROCESS
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 of PROCESS
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 of PROCESS
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 of PROCESS
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 of PROCESS
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 of PROCESS
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 of PROCESS
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 of PROCESS
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 of PROCESS
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 of PROCESS
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 of PROCESS
• 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 of PROCESS
• 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 of PROCESS
• 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 my goal 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 of that 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.