 |
Strategies to Enhance Labour-Management Cooperation in the Development of Disability Management Programs
Shelley Jodoin and Henry Harder
Abstract
Supported by research and literature, labour-management collaboration is an essential feature of successful disability management programs. Employers increase the likelihood of a program's success when they involve unions in the planning, implementation and evaluation of such programs, and in coordinating the return to work of employees. Labour-management collaboration can improve labour relations, improve union and employee buy-in for the program, and reduce the human and financial costs of disability. Employers may use several strategies to secure union cooperation, particularly a joint labour-management committee that oversees the program. Employers who do not involve unions risk grievances based on a failure to meet their legal obligation to accommodate employees, a failure to achieve the buy-in of employees, and increased disability costs.
Strategies to Enhance Union Cooperation in the Development Disability Management Programs
Relationships are the means by which the timely and safe return to work of an injured or ill employee to the workplace is achieved. In order for an employee to be successfully returned to work, collaborative and positive working relationships must exist between the disability management coordinator, the employee, supervisor, union, health care providers, and other internal contacts, to name a few. Disability management is therefore about relationships in the workplace (Dyck, 2003).
Disability management programs operate within a corporate culture that affects how relationships are formed and maintained in the workplace. An organization's culture must support the relationships in the return to work process. In unionized organizations, a disability management program operates against the background of a collective agreement and a labour relations environment. The relationship between management and the union is therefore a central relationship in disability management programs and return to work coordination, second in importance only to the relationship between the disability management coordinator, and the injured or ill employee.
Joint labour-management collaboration is an essential feature of successful disability management programs. Employers who wish to maximize disability management program outcomes increase the likelihood of the program's success when they involve unions in the planning, implementation and evaluation of such programs. Moreover, employers can use a variety of methods to secure the cooperation and collaboration of unions, particularly the use of a joint labour-management advisory or steering committee that oversees the program.
Unionized Workplaces in Canada
A review of unionization rates in Canada shows that unions predominate among large employers, and in the public sector. In November 2003, 32.4% of Canadian employees over the age of 15 were covered by collective agreements. The majority of these employees work for employers with more than 500 employees (56.9%), and in the public sector (75.5%) (Alberta Human Resources & Employment, 2003).
Although 32.4% of Canadian employees are covered by collective agreements, the impact of organized labour upon the terms and conditions of employment and the living conditions of unionized and non-unionized employees reaches far beyond the proportion of employees they represent. Historically, unions' involvement in employment issues has raised employment standards for both unionized and non-unionized employees. Through the efforts of unions, Canadians enjoy a reduced workweek, health benefit plans, and employer paid vacations (Mills, 1995). In addition, union advocacy has resulted in minimum wage legislation, company pension plans, maternity, paternity and adoption leaves, and the prohibition of child labour. According to Schurman, Weil, Landsbergis and Israel (1998), union advocacy has improved occupational health and safety legislation:
The labor movement's relative success over the past three decades in advocating for occupational health and safety legislation parallels its success in promoting social legislation that benefits workers regardless of union status . . . . In contrast, labor has proved far less successful over the past twenty-five years in efforts to promote legislation deemed in the specific interest of organized labor. (pp. 147-148)
In recent years, unions have brought prevention and disability issues to the bargaining table. Bargaining is the most direct means by which unions achieve improved working conditions for their members (Mills, 1995). Unions bargain for increased wages for jobs with greater health and safety risks, for the inclusion of health and safety standards and policies in collective agreements, and for joint labour-management health and safety committees. They also provide feedback to management in the selection and implementation of new technology or processes that have occupational health and safety consequences (Schurman et al., 1998).
In Canada unions have negotiated contract language and initiatives that reduce the impact of disability in the workplace, and promote and protect the employability of persons with disabilities. Prohibitions against discrimination and workplace harassment, and provisions for employment equity and workplace diversity, long term disability benefits, health care benefit plans, employer paid sick leave, confidentiality of personal health information, retraining, and job accommodation are found in Canadian collective agreements (Wiggins, 2000). In addition to the collective bargaining process, unions use political means to affect changes to legislation, and public policy, that affects employee health or addresses the workplace barriers experienced by employees with disabilities (Schurman et al., 1998).
Involvement of Organized Labour in Disability Management Programs
Generally, disability management programs have been implemented by large employers, and public sector employers. As we have seen, these are the same employers where union membership predominates. Large employers are more likely to be interested in developing a program because of the potential cost savings. They also have more resources to plan and implement such programs. In addition, public sector employers often have several collective agreements in place, and are accustomed to working with multiple bargaining agents on a variety of initiatives. It is these employers, therefore, who most often face the choice of whether or not to involve the union.
If an employer chooses to involve the union, the next choice is what form the involvement will take. The degree of union involvement in disability management programs range from no involvement to involvement in: (a) individual return to work coordination only; (b) choosing a consultant to perform a needs assessment and to develop the program; (c) a needs assessment as a precursor to developing the program; (d) selecting the disability management coordinator; (e) providing feedback on a program design and a fully developed set of policies and procedures, already built by the employer; (f) developing the program, including policies and procedures; (g) implementing the program; (j) evaluating the program; or (k) every aspect of the program.
Many large public sector employers, and some private sector employers, use joint labour-management committees as the means by which their unions participate fully in the disability management program. Examples of large private sector employers include MacMillan Bloedel Limited (NIDMAR, 1995), Avenor Inc.'s Thunder Bay pulp-and-paper mill (1997) and Canadian Pacific Railway (Dorrell, 2001). In Alberta, disability management programs operated by the cities of Edmonton, Calgary, Lethbridge, and Medicine Hat (Dorrell, 2001), Edmonton's Capital Health Authority, the University of Alberta, and the Government of Alberta have joint labour-management committees.
Reasons to Involve Unions in Disability Management Programs
The Canadian Environment
According to Getzie, collaboration with unions is the only real alternative open to unionized employers who wish to develop a disability management program in Canadian workplaces.(1997). "Canadian unions are stronger, and they have more legislative support and political connections than their American counterparts. They approach and participate in labour-management cooperative efforts in a different manner than in the U.S." (Getzie, 1997, p. 100).
The Union as Bargaining Agent
By their very nature, disability management programs alter or suspend the terms and conditions of employment contained in the collective agreement, for injured or ill employees returning to work. For example, such employees may be accommodated in positions that would normally be reserved for other employees, on the basis of seniority. Consequently, as the legal bargaining agent for the employees, the union must be involved in any alterations to the terms of employment.
Duty to Accommodate
In Canada, federal and provincial human rights legislation and collective agreements protect employees from discrimination in employment. Certain grounds of discrimination are covered, including discrimination on the basis of a physical or mental disability. Over the years, courts and arbitrators have interpreted these legislative and contractual protections as placing an onus upon employers to accommodate employees on the basis of the protected grounds. This area of law has come to be known as the duty to accommodate.
The standard for accommodation is quite high. Employers must take all reasonable actions to accommodate employees up to the point where such accommodation would cause undue hardship. Employers are obliged to put up with some hardship, but can only refuse to accommodate if the hardship is undue. Factors such as safety, excessive financial costs, effect on the collective agreement, employee morale, adaptability or interchangeability of work force and facilities, and the size of the employer's operations may constitute undue hardship for employers (Central Alberta Dairy Pool v. Alberta Human Rights Commission). Due to the significant resources at their disposal, large employers are rarely able to rely upon financial cost as an undue hardship defence.
Unions also have an obligation to accommodate employees to the point of undue hardship. Although employers have the primary duty to accommodate, unions may not bar a reasonable accommodation, even though it represents a minor deviation from the terms of the collective agreement (Central Okanagan School District No. 23 v. Renaud). For unions, substantial departures from the collective agreement, or substantial intrusions on the rights of other employees (e.g. seniority rights incurred upon layoffs, bumping and recall) may constitute undue hardship (Bailey and Johnson, 2003). All other reasonable options which do not require deviations from the collective agreement, such as disrupting seniority rights, must first be explored (Re Bayer Rubber Inc. and Communications, Energy and Paper Workers Union, Local 914). The rationale for this approach is that employees requiring accommodation are entitled to equal treatment, not better treatment, than their co-workers. Accordingly, an employee may not override the seniority rights of another employee by taking that employee's job away (Re Smoky River Coal Ltd. and United Steelworkers of America Local 7621), or by receiving preferential placement in vacancies or promotions where he or she has already been sufficiently accommodated (Re Colonial Cookies and United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 617P; Bailey and Johnson, 2003).
Employees that have not been accommodated to the point of undue hardship, may file a grievance under the collective agreement against the employer, and possibly the union. They may also file a human rights complaint. Unions, too, may file grievances based on the duty to accommodate. By law, unions have a duty of fair representation to their members; they may be required to file a grievance against the employer on behalf of an employee who was not appropriately accommodated. They may also file a grievance against the employer if they feel that an accommodation substantially interferes with the collective agreement, or the rights of other employees.
Employers have a better chance of avoiding grievances and human rights complaints if they include unions in the planning and implementation of disability management programs, and in individual return to work planning. It may not be necessary to involve the union in individual return to work coordination, if an employee returns to his or her own position and there is little impact upon co-workers or the collective agreement. Unions, however, should be involved if requested by the employee. They should also be involved if the proposed accommodation impacts the collective agreement or co-workers' rights.
Research
"Joint labour-management commitment and involvement" is one of the key elements in successful disability management programs (Shrey, 1996, p. 409) and this is supported empirically. Bruyere and Shrey (1991) cite five studies that support the essential nature of joint labour-management collaboration in disability management programs. In research by Baird (2002), the essential elements of successful disability management programs, including joint labour-management collaboration, were found to correlate moderately or strongly with such indicators as reduced claim rates and disability costs. Moreover, a study of 11,000 Ontario workers suggests that union membership increases the probability that an employee will maintain employment following a permanent work-related injury (Butler, Johnston, and Baldwin, 1995). Although the study was not able to determine what union actions played a part in sustaining union members' employment, its authors hypothesized that this particular finding was likely the result of seniority clauses. Bruyere and Shrey (1991) also cite evidence that collective bargaining may assist the return to work and rehabilitation of individual employees.
This research has been accepted and incorporated into various models of disability management by several authors, including Dyck (2003) and Shrey (1995a), into the essential core skills of disability management professionals and return to work coordinators by NIDMAR (1999), and into codes of practice by NIDMAR (2000) and the International Labour Organization (2002).
Poor Labour Relations Increase Disability Costs
Poor labour relations can increase the financial and human costs of disability to both the employee and the employer. According to Walker, Heile, and Heffner (1995), recent labour management discord can increase lost time claims and disability costs. This is confirmed by Bruyere and Shrey (1991), who argue that a poor labour relations environment weakens the occupational bond between an employee and the employer and reduces the likelihood that the employee will return to work following injury or illness. The occupational bond is the attachment that an employee feels to his or her job, co-workers, and employer generally. "Employee job dissatisfaction, conflicts between coworkers and supervisors, employee work performance problems, chronic absenteeism, and deceptive or exaggerated worker compensation claims are often manifestations of negative labor relations" (Bruyere and Shrey, 1991). Conversely, successful disability management programs, based on joint labour-management commitment and involvement, can improve labour relations (Dyck, 2003).
Strategies to Maximize the Involvement of Labour in Disability Management Programs
Building Trust
Trust is the cornerstone upon which joint labour-management collaboration is based (Dyck, 2003). It comes from the union perceiving that management is genuinely interested in the union's input, and truly values the contributions of injured or ill employees. In a poor labour relations climate, trust takes more time and effort to establish. Management must ensure its process for developing the program is clearly understood by the union (G. Rajotte, personal communication, November 27, 2003 ). Misunderstandings can easily sabotage a collaborative relationship, especially in the early stages when the relationship is vulnerable and the parties are just beginning to trust each other. Use of a neutral, external facilitator can effectively lead management and labour through the program development process (Back to Work, August, 1997).
Finding Common Ground
As we have seen earlier, poor labour relations increases the human and financial costs of disability, and provides a motive for employers to work collaboratively with unions in the development of disability management programs. A healthy labour relations environment sets the stage for positive relations between the employer and individual employees in the return to work process, and "ensures worker productivity, safety, and economic security" (Mills, 1995, p. 225).
Despite apparent differences in motivations for participating in disability management programs, unions and employers share common ground. Employers' motivations for implementing disability management programs include: (a) obligations under the duty to accommodate; (b) retention of valuable and productive employees in whom the employer may have invested considerable training and resources; (c) reduced time lost from work by employees; (d) lower employee turnover; (e) lower recruitment and retraining costs of replacement employees; (f) increased productivity; and (g) reduced short-term disability, long-term disability, and workers' compensation costs.
Unions' motivations to participate in disability management programs include: (a) retention of union members, and the protection of their employability; (b) reduced negative impact, including financial, of the injury upon the employee and his or her family; (c) obligations under the duty to accommodate; (d) the opportunity to influence the nature of the program's policies and procedures, which amount to an alteration in the collective agreement, in a way that is consistent with trade union values; (e) reduced disability costs for the employer, which directly affects the level of wage and benefit package improvements the employer is able to concede in the next round of collective bargaining (J. Malthouse, personal communication, December 1, 2003 ); and (f) advocating for suitable job accommodations for their injured or ill members.
Employers and unions therefore share obligations under the duty to accommodate, protection of employees' employability, and reduced financial and human disability costs as reasons for participating in disability management programs. For many unions, however, discussions about cost savings cause distrust, with good reason. Disability management programs that focus exclusively upon on cost savings, without implementing the essential characteristics of effective programs, are more likely to fail:
Prior attempts at return to work, such as light-duty programs, have resulted in dissatisfaction or additional labor-management friction. Light-duty, as a practice, has failed to reduce workers' compensation costs while maintaining worker productivity. At many companies, plant and office supervisors have learned that light duty programs become a graveyard of the non-productive 'working wounded.' These returning workers adapt to substandard performances, and the supervisors do not know how to get more work from them. In these circumstances, permanent light duty has disappointed both workers and their supervisors. (Walker et al., 1995, p.57)
Accordingly, employers wishing to work collaboratively with unions, should not focus exclusively upon cost savings, but should focus strongly upon how disability management programs reduce the impact of injury and illness upon the employee.
Joint Labour-Management Committees
Where unions are involved extensively in disability management programs, the ideal vehicle for securing the cooperation of unions is usually a joint labour-management committee. (Dyck, 2003; Mills, 1995; National Institute of Disability Management and Research, 2003; Shrey, 1997; Westmorland & Buys, 2002). Consisting of representation from management and labour, a joint labour-management committee is one of the most effective ways to ensure that the disability management program has the support of organized labour. Often, an existing joint labour-management health and safety committee becomes the basis for the new disability management program committee, especially where the committee members function well together.
Where joint labour-management disability management committees are found, most employers have established a single advisory or steering committee. Some organizations, however, may have two committees: (a) an advisory committee that sets policy and monitors the program's implementation and evaluation; and (b) an operational committee that does actual return to work planning, or reviews and endorses the transitional work plan (NIDMAR, 1995; 2003). A two-tiered committee structure is more common in large employers that have several branches or worksites, particularly if these worksites are spread over a large geographic area. (NIDMAR, 1995, 2003). MacMillan Bloedel Limited (NIDMAR, 1995) and Canadian Pacific Railway are examples of employers that have a two-tiered committee structure.
The choice of individual representatives to the committee is critical to its success and ability to resolve issues as the program's policies and procedures are developed. NIDMAR (1995) recommends balanced representation, although does not specifically indicate that labour-management representation should be equal. Unions should choose their own representatives to the committee. Members should be well regarded by the union and management alike, and viewed as impartial (NIDMAR, 1995). Due to the possibility of competing agendas, M. Klachefsky (personal communication, November 27, 2003) recommends that committee members not be drawn from among former or existing collective bargaining committees. Committee members should be familiar with the range of occupations and worksites. In addition, committee membership overall should represent a broad range of experience and skills, including "occupational health and safety, human resources, risk management, [and] employee benefits" (NIDMAR, 1995, p. 9). Dyck (2003) suggests that consultants and employee assistance professionals are also appropriate candidates for committee membership.
The committee has several functions:
- Set the budget (Dyck, 2003),
- Create the program's mission and objectives (NIDMAR, 2003),
- Conduct an assessment of the disability management needs of the workplace, including a review of benefit and employee assistance programs and the collective agreement, identification of the attitudes of key stakeholders and the current labour relations climate, and the identification of trends in occupational and non-occupational injuries and illnesses (NIDMAR, 2003);,
- Design the program (Dyck, 2003),
- Review and revise the program for consistency with the collective agreement (Dyck, 2003),
- Create policies and procedures for the program, including return to work protocols, job banks and transitional work options, and job accommodations (Shrey, 1997),
- Hire the disability management coordinator,
- Provide direction and advice to the disability management coordinator,
- Identify suitable transitional work options,
- Set up a dispute resolution process, possibly functioning as the final stage in disputes over return to work plans (Dyck, 2003; Mills, 1995),
- Oversee implementation of the program (NIDMAR, 2003),
- Evaluate the program's outcomes according to an agreed upon set of success indicators (Dyck, 2003),
- Communicate and promote the program's processes, objectives, and results to supervisors, union officials, senior management, and employees (Dyck, 2003), and
- Make recommendations to senior management for required resources and supports (Dyck, 2003).
Initially, not all committee members will have sufficient knowledge to be effective. Organizations should therefore arrange for committee members to participate jointly in training that reviews disability management principles, the organization's injury and illness profiles, return to work obstacles, prevention and health promotion programs, the financial impact of disability, and the impact of labour relations on disability costs (Shrey, 1995b). Following such training, all committee members will have the same level of knowledge and be better equipped to make decisions about the program's vision, policies and procedures.
Collective Agreement Language
Together employers and unions should write mutually agreeable clauses that address anti-discrimination, employment equity, workplace diversity, confidentiality of personal health information accommodation, long term disability benefits, health care benefit plans, employer paid sick leave, retraining, job accommodation, and return to work protocols. Entrenching return to work processes, at least the basic steps, in the collective agreement commits the employer to a particular process, and ensures that all parties understand the process. Departures from the process would be grievable.
Seniority rights consist of preferences in layoff, bumping, and recall, and may also include the right to bid for desirable, vacant jobs in the bargaining unit. Such jobs are often less physically demanding, and have better hours of work. During the disability management program planning phase, employers and unions should also work out how job accommodation of an injured or ill employee will affect the seniority of other employees. Dealing with these issues in advance allows for a resolution acceptable to both management and the union, and the avoidance of potential grievances.
To gain union trust collective agreement language, as well as letters of understanding and disability management program policies, should emphasize retention of employees, not cost savings. In workplaces with multiple bargaining units, all unions should be involved so that accommodation in other bargaining units can be addressed in the collective agreement.
Return to Work Coordination
Following the development of the program, organizations must communicate the disability management program. Employees need to know when and how they might enter the program, how it will benefit them, and the roles and responsibilities of all the parties involved, including the employee, supervisor, return to work coordinator, and union representative. Unions that have collaborated in the development of the program have a responsibility to communicate and promote its benefits to shop stewards and the rank and file membership. Orientation sessions conducted jointly by management and union effectively convey the message that the program has the support of senior management and union leadership (Dyck, 2003).
A positive working relationship between the return to work coordinator and union representative can make return to work coordination go smoother. If the program and the process have the support of the union, the union can take the fear of the process for the employee. The union can reassure the employee that regular contact with the return to work coordinator is appropriate, and not harassment (G. Rajotte, personal communication, November 27, 2003). Unions are more likely to lend their support to the return to work process if: (a) it was established in collaboration with the union and in accordance with disability management principles; (b) the confidentiality of employees' personal health information is respected; and (c) the program policies and protocols are actually followed during individual return to work plans.
Program Implementation and Evaluation
In return to work coordination, the demands of the injured or ill employee's current job must be ascertained, in order to determine whether the employee can perform the essential requirements of the job (with or without accommodations), or whether he or she will require accommodation into another position. Job descriptions tend to become outdated, and generally do not include descriptions of the physical, cognitive or social demands of the job. When assessing a particular job's demands, the union and employees should be consulted because of their in-depth knowledge of the workplace.
Job banks are lists of tasks, including short term or long term tasks, suitable for transitional work. When an employee returns to work and has work restrictions, his or her functional abilities are matched with the functional demands of a suitable position from the job bank. As a result of their direct and extensive knowledge of workplace demands, union representatives and employees are an excellent source of ideas for transitional work options, whether for the job bank or for a particular accommodation.
As discussed previously, evaluation of the disability management program should be carried out according to a mutually agreed upon set of evaluation criteria. Even if the employer has not involved the union from the beginning, it is important to request feedback from union representatives during the evaluation. Unions function as a voice for their members' concerns to management that employees may be reluctant to raise on their own. These issues might otherwise be overlooked in the evaluation.
Challenges and Traps to Avoid
Employers wishing to work collaboratively with unions should avoid:
- Combining absence management programs with disability management programs. Absence management programs are interpreted by unions as punitive, or a way for the employer to avoid legitimate sick leave entitlements (J. Malthouse, personal communication, December 1, 2003),
- Bringing the union in the middle of the process, as union buy-in is maximized when an employer works with the union from the beginning,
- Suggesting to an injured or ill employee that he or she does not need to involve the union - this breaks down trust, since the employee is relying upon the union to represent his or her interests (G. Rajotte, personal communication, November 27, 2003),
- Breaching employee confidentiality,
- Failing to respect the knowledge and experience of committee members, including union representatives (G. Dykau, personal communication, December 1, 2003 ),
- Poor return to work experiences for employees, particularly early in the program. On the other hand, successful experiences will enhance the program's reputation,
- Appointing committee members with hidden agendas (Dyck, 2003),
- Introduction of new committee members without proper briefing, which may impede the committee's functioning and effectiveness (Dyck, 2003), and
- Strategies that are likely to result in a loss of trust.
Loss of trust and respect endangers collaboration and can damage the fledgling working relationship. Not attending meetings consistently, revealing confidential information, failing to complete tasks, and failing to work cooperatively are some examples of committee member behaviour that can damage trust (Dyck, 2003).
As discussed, disability management programs operate within a labour relations climate. Such climates are affected adversely by recent work disruptions (e.g. strikes or lockouts), poor health and safety practices (particularly those resulting in fatalities or severe injuries), and recent restructuring, or layoffs, which reduce the likelihood that an employer will be able to successfully collaborate with the union. Although Dyck (1993) points out that implementing a disability management program accepted by all the stakeholders can improve labour relations, a program is more likely to be successful when the employer commits to addressing the sources of labour-management conflict.
Unions must also operate within their own political environment. It may not be possible for a union to endorse a program, given the culture of its membership, but that need not be a deterrent to labour-management collaboration. In these circumstances, employers should encourage union participation but not insist upon endorsement of the program (M. Klachefsky, personal communication, November 27, 2003).
Finally, Dyck (2003) mentions that a union's culture may not be conducive to collaboration, particularly where it views its function as fighting the employer. Management attitudes that view unions suspiciously are also problematic. At the end of the day, a culture mismatch between the management and union may not make collaboration possible.
Conclusion
Some employers choose not to involve unions in the planning, development, and implementation of disability management programs, or in planning the return to work of employees with injuries or illnesses. These employers risk grievances based on a failure in their duty to accommodate, a failure to achieve the buy-in of employees upon which the program's success greatly depends, and greater disability costs due to a failure to implement one of the key elements in successful disability management programs. Union collaboration in disability management programs is supported by a body of research and literature, and is justified because they are the legal bargaining agent for the employees and must be involved in any alterations to employment terms necessitated by the program. On the other hand, there are benefits to joint labour-management collaboration, including improved labour relations generally, union and employee buy-in for the program, and better program outcomes such as reduced human and financial disability costs.
Collaboration is primarily based on trust and may be achieved in many ways, most notably by management focusing upon the common ground, or interests, of labour and management, emphasizing the program's benefits to injured or ill employees, and genuinely valuing and incorporating the input of unions. Although several strategies were discussed, joint labour-management collaboration is principally achieved through a joint labour-management committee that oversees every aspect of the program, and through cooperation in the return to work process.
Employers do not have sole responsibility for achieving joint labour-management collaboration. When approached by management, unions have a responsibility to participate because they are the legal bargaining agent, and also have a duty to accommodate. In addition, when their input has been incorporated into the program unions have a responsibility to actively promote it to their membership.
References
Alberta Human Resources & Employment. (November, 2003). Union coverage and
union membership in Canada. Edmonton, AB.: Author.
Anonymous. Part I: A model of union-management cooperation, Avenor rebuilds RTW
program from ground up. Back to Work, (July, 1997) 4-5.
Anonymous. Part II: A model of union-management cooperation, Avenor's
unions part of day-to-day RTW operations. Back to Work, (August, 1997) 4-5.
Baird, M. (2002). Evaluating a disability management program. In National Institute of
Disability Management & Research, First International Forum on Disability
Management: Work Retention Strategies in a Global Society (pp. 128-134).
Conference, Vancouver, B.C.
Bailey, D. & Johnson, W. (2003). Accommodation and Seniority. In Centre for Labour-
Management Development, The Duty to Accommodate in the Unionized
Workplace. (pp. 185-200). Conference. Calgary, AB.
British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) v. British Columbia (Council of
Human Rights), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 868.
Bruyere, S. & Shrey, D. (1991). Disability management in industry: a joint labor-
management process. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 34(3), 227-242. Retrieved November 17, from the Academic Search Premier database.
Butler, R., Johnson, W. & Baldwin, M. (1995). Managing work disability: Why first
return to work is not a measure of success. Industrial and Labor Relations
Review, 34(3), 452-69.
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Retrieved March 12, 2004 from
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/.
Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C. 1998, c. H-6.
Central Alberta Dairy Pool v. Alberta Human Rights Commission [1990] 2 S.C.R. 489.
Central Okanagan School District No. 23 v. Renaud (1992), 95 D.L.R. (4th) 577
(S.C.C.).
Dorrell, K. (2001). Disability champions. Benefits Canada, 25(2), 57-59.
Dyck, D. (2002). Disability Management: Theory, Strategy and Industry Practice,
Second Edition. Markham, Ontario: Butterworths Canada Ltd.
Getzie, T. (1997). The importance of labour-management cooperation. In National
Institute of Disability Management and Research (1997). Strategies for
Success: Disability Management in the Workplace (pp. 96-105). Port Alberni,
B.C.: Author.
International Labour Organization. (2002), Managing Disability in the Workplace: ILO
Code of Practice, [Electronic version]. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.
Mills, D. (1995). Building joint labor-management initiatives for worksite disability
management. In Shrey and Lacerte (Eds.), Principles & Practices of Disability
Management in Industry (pp. 225-247). Winter Park, FL: GR Press.
National Institute of Disability Management and Research (1995). Disability and
Management in the Workplace: a Guide to Establishing a Joint Workplace
Program, First Edition. Port Alberni, B.C.: Author.
National Institute of Disability Management and Research (2003). Disability and
Management in the Workplace: a Guide to Establishing a Joint Workplace
Program, Second Edition. Port Alberni, B.C.: Author.
National Institute of Disability Management and Research (1999). Occupational
Standards in Disability Management. Port Alberni, B.C.: Author.
National Institute of Disability Management and Research (2000). Code of Practice for
Disability Management. Port Alberni, B.C.: Author.
Nolan, C. (1997). Driving change. Benefits Canada, 12(9), 57-58.
Re Bayer Rubber Inc. and Communications, Energy and Paper Workers Union, Local 914 (1997), 65 L.A.C. (4th) 261.
Re Colonial Cookies and United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 617P (1999), 82 L.A.C. (4th) 101.
Re Smoky River Coal Ltd. and United Steelworkers of America Local 7621 (1998), 75 L.A.C. (4th) 104.
Schurman, S., Weil, D., Landsbergis, P., and Israel, B. (1998). The role of unions and
a collective bargaining in preventing work-related disability. In Thomason,
Burton, and Hyatt (Eds.), New Approaches to Disability in the Workplace (pp.
121-154). Madison, WI: Industrial Relations Research Association.
Shrey, D. (1995a). Worksite disability management and industrial rehabilitation: An
Overview. In Shrey and Lacerte (Eds.), Principles & Practices of Disability
Management in Industry (pp. 3-53). Winter Park, FL: GR Press.
Shrey, D. (1995b). Disability management practice at the work site: Developing,
implementing, and evaluating transitional work programs. In Shrey and Lacerte
(Eds.), Principles & Practices of Disability Management in Industry (pp. 55-105).
Winter Park, FL: GR Press.
Shrey, D. (1996). Disability management in industry: The new paradigm in
injured worker rehabilitation. Disability and Rehabilitation, 18(8), 408-414.
Shrey, D. (1997). Benchmarks of optimal programs. In National Institute of Disability
Management and Research (1997). Strategies for Success: Disability
Management in the Workplace (pp. 142-152). Port Alberni, B.C.: Author.
Walker, J., Heile, G., & Heffner, F. (1995). 10 tips for disability management programs.
Risk Management, 42(6), 57-61.
Westmorland, M. & Buys, N. (2002). Disability management in a sample of Australian
self-insured companies. Disability and Rehabilitation, 24(14), 746-754.
Wiggins, C. (2000). Research Paper #17: Disability Provisions in Collective Agreements
in Canada.[Electronic version]. Canadian Labour Congress. Ottawa, Ontario.
Contact for correspondence
E-Mail: Shelley Jodoin sdjodoin@shaw.ca
E-Mail: Henry Harder harderh@unbc.ca
Keywords
disability management strategies; trade union/labour - management cooperation; labour relations
|
