Immigrant Workers’ Access to Compensation for Workplace

Injuries or Illnesses “Should I Stay or Should I Go?”

Metropolis Presents: Policy-Research Seminar on Temporary MigrationMarch 12, 2008, Ottawa, Ontario

Sylvie Gravel, Ph.D., Professor

École des sciences de la gestion, organisation ressources humaines, UQAM

gravel.s@uqam.ca

Refusede

Refused

Accepted5b.2- Commission des lésionsprofessionnelles (CLP)

5b.3- Superior Court

4b.1- Refusal / description of facts4b.2- Refusal / diagnosis4b.3- Refusal / work-injury link 4b.4- Refusal / rehabilitation4b.5- Refusal / functional limitation4b.6- Refusal / consolidation4b.7- Refusal / return to work

5b.1- Challenge: administrative review division

Accepted

AcceptedRefused

6a- Return to work:

• Same work• Same employer• Adapted position• Suitable position

7.1- Did not returnto work

• Disability

7.2- Did not returnto work

• EI• Income security• Dependence on

family

4a- Rehabilitation

• Medical• Psychosocial• Vocational

5a- Consolidation

1- Report

3a - Accepted

2- Claim

3b- Refused

Logical model of the administrative compensation process in Quebec

Worker’s personal situation

Difficulties in medicalconsultations

Difficulties in Administrative procedures

Difficulties in legalconsultations

Compensation

Difficultiesreintegratinginto theworkplace

OHS workplace conditions

Human problems

Causal relationship

Influence

Cause of injury

Barriers to compensation encountered by immigrant workers

Sample and analyses

104 workers 51 NON-immigrants

53 immigrants

1. Analysis of matches

2. Taxonomy

4. Lexicologicalanalysis

Claim forms 67 workers and employers

23 workers

14 none

3. Case studies 10 most difficult cases

Two interviews

Third interview

53% men, 47% womenAll having claimed compensation for MSIsRecruitment: 3 partners (OHS medical clinic, legal research office, NGO for workers’ rights)

104 workers

51 NON-immigrants53 immigrants

2 claim interviews

104 workers Evaluation of difficulty scores

Sample

10 cases 3rd interview

Worst cases

Results: Difficulties in medical consultations

Immigrant workers have more Inaccurate diagnoses (64% vs. 42%)

(p=0.08) Difficulties being understood during the

medical examination (23% vs. 20%) (p=0.017)

Medical and psychological complications (NS)

Results: Difficulties with administrative procedures

Immigrant workers Use a third person to draw up their

claims (58% vs. 8%) (p= 0.04)

File their claims late (32% vs. 24%) (p=0.05) (Allophones) do not understand the

administrative procedures (65% vs. 62%) (NS)

Do not understand the decisions (58% vs.

50%) or the correspondence from the compensation agency (49% vs. 42%) (NS)

Results: Difficulties with legal consultations

Immigrant workers Have a higher rate of refusal (52% vs. 24%)

(p=0.08) Are more often challenged by their

employers (64% vs. 24%) (p= 0.09)

Appeal the decision rendered less often (55% vs. 62%) (p= 0.7)

Results: Difficulties upon returning to workImmigrant workers Do not benefit from a gradual return or

from a lighter workload (66% vs. 41%) (p=0.06)

Are frequently dismissed after their injury or illness (74% vs. 62%) (p=0.05)

Results:Group analysisTaxonomy Immigrant

(53)Non–

immigrant

(51)Workers who did not exercise their right of recourse (n=31)

74%(23)

26%(8)

Workers who were overwhelmed by the situation (n=5)

40%( 2)

60%( 3)

Workers who were compensated but then fired or laid off (n= 45)

42%(19)

58%(26)

Workers who were compensated without encountering pitfalls (n=23)

39%(9)

61%(14)

Results: Case studies

Of the immigrant workers who experienced particularly difficult compensation procedures:

10/10 were dismissed because of a decrease in productivity

9/10 have been unemployed since they were dismissed

6/10 were subject to an incomplete or contradictory medical examination

Lexicological analysis of claims(SCAN method)

Analysis of the quality of incident descriptions in claims

Number of words (no result) Number of errors (no result) Number of segments: incident, pain,

situation, movement, load, and presence of witnesses (no result)

Comparison of employee and employer versions: similar, same meaning, contradictory, identical (of concern)

Lexicological analysisComplete / incomplete report

“I fell off the ladder while holding the sign while my co-worker was in the truck. I don’t know what happened, whether the ladder slipped or a pedestrian knocked it. When I fell on my right shoulder, I felt a sharp pain that spread to my back.”

Possible segments: incident, pain, situation, movement, load, and presence of witnesses

Refusal rate for identical / non-identical reports

Employer / employee versions

Accepted Refused Total

Identical13

(50%)(33%)

13(50%)(54%)

26(100%)(41%)

Non-identical

27(71%)(67%)

11(29%)(46%)

38(100%)(59%)

Total40

(65%)24

(34%)64

(100%)

Conclusion

Poorly consolidated or uncompensated workplace injuries or illnesses result in accelerated deterioration of immigrant workers’ physical and mental health,

loss of skills, lower productivity,dismissal, and

an unemployed worker losing his or her skills

Social and health inequalities

that lead to poverty

Develop skills and abilities

Immigrate

Enter the labour market

Sustain an injury

Report the injury

Claim compensation

Relyon

abilities

Curtail abilities

Lose / use

abilities

Receive no compensation

or not enough compensation

Be involvedin

economic growth

Meet achievement needs

Earn an income

Income security

No income

Receive compensation without encountering any pitfalls

Return to work

Receivefair

treatment

Be dismissed

Receive compensation

Work income

Reflection: Compensation of immigrant workers and ethics of the economic development

in employer countries of a transnational workforce

Sen

’s

theo

ries

Com

pens

atio

n of

w

orkp

lace

inju

ries

Maintain worker status

Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage 5