Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Barriers to Return-to-Work for Linguistic Minorities in Ontario: An Analysis of Narratives from Appeal Decisions

  • Published:
Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose Previous research has shown that linguistic minorities have inferior workers’ compensation experiences and outcomes; however little information exists on the structural barriers they face in relation to return-to-work (RTW). We sought to address this gap by describing barriers to RTW for linguistic minorities in Ontario using narratives from appeal decisions. Methods We examined decisions by the Ontario Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal. We searched the full text of decisions rendered between October 1, 2010 and September 30, 2011 for the keyword “English”. A total of 378 decisions were generated. After eliminating decisions that did not involve linguistic minorities we retained half (189) for analysis. We summarized the issues around language for each decision and identified broad themes across decisions. Results We found that linguistic minorities’ limitations with regards to communication and power left them vulnerable to abuse, incomprehension and misperception by employers, care providers and adjudicators. In addition, specific RTW policies and practices failed to properly consider or mitigate their lack of English proficiency. These interpersonal and structural barriers negatively impacted linguistic minorities’ eligibility to benefits and services and the appropriateness thereof, as well as their eventual return to work. Conclusions Our research highlights the need to move beyond efforts to improve the linguistic competence of compensation boards to target the structural factors that impede equal access at every stage of the process.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Many more claims are filed each year. In 2011, that number was approximately 235,000.

  2. Former Vice President of Work Reintegration at the WSIB.

  3. In September 2011, the WSIB launched a new “Work Reintegration Strategy”. The language and content of this article reflects the previous policies, which still apply to many pending appeals. We use “Return-to-Work” to refer to the two components of the previous policies, “Early and Safe Return to Work” and “Labour Market Re-Entry”.

  4. This determination is made on the basis on the cumulative effect of medical, psycho-social and employment market factors namely age, education, English proficiency, literacy and past work and life experience. Workers considered permanently unemployable are entitled to loss of earnings (LOE) benefits until age 65.

  5. In addition, employers of firms with more than 20 workers are required to reinstate injured workers with at least 1 year seniority, up to 2 years from the time of injury, and to provide accommodations to the point of undue hardship where required.

  6. In 2011, for example, the Tribunal disposed of 3,830 cases.

  7. Decision No. 262/10, 2011 ONWSIAT 320 (CanLII), http://canlii.ca/t/fm20c retrieved on 2014-03-13.

  8. Decision No. 1654/10, 2010 ONWSIAT 2936 (CanLII), http://canlii.ca/t/fltn3 retrieved on 2014-03-13.

  9. Decision No. 1657/10, 2010 ONWSIAT 2602 (CanLII), http://canlii.ca/t/flh07 retrieved on 2014-03-12.

  10. Decision No. 38/11, 2011 ONWSIAT 1802 (CanLII), http://canlii.ca/t/fnqkn retrieved on 2014-03-12.

  11. Decision No. 685/11, 2011 ONWSIAT 997 (CanLII), http://canlii.ca/t/fmlm1 retrieved on 2014-03-12.

  12. Decision No. 1533/10, 2010 ONWSIAT 2342 (CanLII), http://canlii.ca/t/fl839 retrieved on 2014-03-12.

  13. Decision No. 99/10, 2011 ONWSIAT 465 (CanLII), http://canlii.ca/t/fm22d retrieved on 2014-03-13.

  14. Decision No. 1728/10, 2010 ONWSIAT 2411 (CanLII), http://canlii.ca/t/flcrl retrieved on 2014-05-08.

  15. Decision No. 667/11, 2011 ONWSIAT 1284 (CanLII), http://canlii.ca/t/fmvtc retrieved on 2014-03-12.

  16. Decision No. 358/10, 2010 ONWSIAT 2251 (CanLII), http://canlii.ca/t/fl80r retrieved on 2014-02-28.

  17. Decision No. 484/11, 2011 ONWSIAT 752 (CanLII), http://canlii.ca/t/fmgh4 retrieved on 2014-03-12.

  18. Decision No. 2366/09, 2010 ONWSIAT 2528 (CanLII), http://canlii.ca/t/fld8g retrieved on 2014-03-04.

  19. Decision No. 398/11, 2011 ONWSIAT 952 (CanLII), http://canlii.ca/t/fmgcc retrieved on 2014-03-09.

  20. Decision No. 768/11, 2011 ONWSIAT 962 (CanLII), http://canlii.ca/t/fmgdd retrieved on 2014-03-09.

  21. Decision No. 2451/10, 2011 ONWSIAT 2219 (CanLII), http://canlii.ca/t/fpgh9 retrieved on 2014-03-07.

  22. Decision No. 1552/11, 2011 ONWSIAT 2000 (CanLII), http://canlii.ca/t/fp483 retrieved on 2014-03-07.

  23. Decision No. 1983/10, 2010 ONWSIAT 2384 (CanLII), http://canlii.ca/t/flcq0 retrieved on 2014-03-07.

  24. Decision No. 2236/10, 2011 ONWSIAT 680 (CanLII), http://canlii.ca/t/fm6x4 retrieved on 2014-03-07.

  25. Decision No. 2301/10, 2011 ONWSIAT 462 (CanLII), http://canlii.ca/t/fm1v9 retrieved on 2014-03-07.

  26. Decision No. 1695/10, 2010 ONWSIAT 2847 (CanLII), http://canlii.ca/t/flst8 retrieved on 2014-03-08.

  27. Decision No. 209/11, 2011 ONWSIAT 1342 (CanLII), http://canlii.ca/t/fn5z5 retrieved on 2014-03-07.

  28. Decision No. 2512/10, 2011 ONWSIAT 210 (CanLII), http://canlii.ca/t/fm0xz retrieved on 2014-03-09.

  29. Decision No. 2349/10, 2010 ONWSIAT 2802 (CanLII), http://canlii.ca/t/flqbl retrieved on 2014-03-09.

  30. Decision No. 768/11, 2011 ONWSIAT 962 (CanLII), http://canlii.ca/t/fmgdd retrieved on 2014-03-09.

  31. Decision No. 2366/09, 2010 ONWSIAT 2528 (CanLII), http://canlii.ca/t/fld8g retrieved on 2014-03-09.

  32. Decision No. 108/11, 2011 ONWSIAT 605 (CanLII), http://canlii.ca/t/fm718 retrieved on 2014-03-09.

  33. Decision No. 1592/11, 2011 ONWSIAT 2272 (CanLII), http://canlii.ca/t/fpj5s retrieved on 2014-03-11.

  34. Decision No. 955/11, 2011 ONWSIAT 1145 (CanLII), http://canlii.ca/t/fmltr retrieved on 2014-03-07.

  35. Decision No. 955/11, 2011 ONWSIAT 1145 (CanLII), http://canlii.ca/t/fmltr retrieved on 2014-03-12.

  36. Decision No. 2451/10, 2011 ONWSIAT 2219 (CanLII), http://canlii.ca/t/fpgh9 retrieved on 2014-03-12.

  37. Decision No. 1029/11, 2011 ONWSIAT 1293 (CanLII), http://canlii.ca/t/fmvtx retrieved on 2014-04-29.

  38. This information was obtained by the Industrial Accident Victims Group of Ontario (IAVGO) through a Freedom of Information request on the board’s surveillance practices. The document can be accessed here: http://iavgo.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Surveillance-FOI-Part-2.pdf.

  39. The federal government’s policy is to provide bilingual services, while provincial and municipal governments typically only support service provision in the language of the majority. There are exceptions, as illustrated by the Ontario French Language Services Act that guarantees access to provincial government services in French in 25 areas with significant numbers of Franco-Ontarians. On the legislative side, Canadian, provincial and territorial human rights laws set out the “duty to accommodate” the different needs of clients in service provision. While language is not explicitly protected, it is potentially so if it masks discrimination based on race or place of origin.

References

  1. Statistics Canada. Canada Year Book 2011. Ottawa; 2011.

  2. Statistics Canada. Population by knowledge of official language, by province and territory (2006 Census). Ottawa; 2007.

  3. Statistics Canada. Knowledge of official languages by mother tongue, Ontario, 2006. Ottawa; 2011.

  4. Asanin J, Wilson K. “I spent nine years looking for a doctor”: exploring access to health care among immigrants in Mississauga, Ontario, Canada. Soc Sci Med. 2008;66:1271–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. King G, Lindsay S, Klassen A, Esses V, Mesterman R. Barriers to health service utilization by immigrant families raising a disabled child: unmet needs and the role of discrimination. Ontario: Citizenship and Immigration Canada; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Corbeil J-P, Lafrenière S. Portrait of official-language minorities in Canada: francophones in Ontario. Ottawa: Statistics Canada; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Villeneuve MJ. Healthcare, race and diversity: time to act. Healthc Q. 2002;6:67–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Ricento T, Cervatiuc A. Language minority rights and educational policy in Canada. In: Pretovic JE, editor. International perspectives on bilingual education: policy, practice, and controversy. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing Inc.; 2010. p. 21–42.

  9. Duff PA, Li D. Indigenous, minority, and heritage language education in Canada: policies, contexts, and issues. Can Mod Lang Rev. 2009;66:1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Premji S, Krause N. Disparities by ethnicity, language, and immigrant status in occupational health experiences among Las Vegas hotel room cleaners. Am J Ind Med. 2010;53:960–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Sears JM, Bowman SM, Adams D, Silverstein BA. Who pays for work-related traumatic injuries? payer distribution in Washington State by ethnicity, injury severity, and year (1998–2008). Am J Ind Med. 2013;56:742–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Smith PM, Kosny AA, Mustard CA. Differences in access to wage replacement benefits for absences due to work-related injury or illness in Canada. Am J Ind Med. 2009;52:341–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Premji S, Duguay P, Messing K, Lippel K. Are immigrants, ethnic and linguistic minorities over-represented in jobs with a high level of compensated risk? Results from a Montreal, Canada study using census and workers’ compensation data. Am J Ind Med. 2010;53:875–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Gravel S, Vissandjée B, Lippel K, Brodeur J-M, Patry L, Champagne F. Ethics and the compensation of immigrant workers for work-related injuries and illnesses. J Immigr Minor Health. 2010;12:707–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kosny A, MacEachen E, Lifshen M, Smith P, Jafri GJ, Neilson C, et al. Delicate dances: immigrant workers’ experiences of injury reporting and claim filing. Ethn Health. 2012;17:267–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Bonauto DK, Smith CK, Adams DA, Fan ZJ, Silverstein BA, Foley MP. Language preference and non traumatic low back disorders in washington state workers’ compensation. Am J Ind Med. 2010;53:204–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Burgel BJ, Lashuay N, Israel L, Harrison R. Garment workers in California: health outcomes of the Asian Immigrant Women Workers Clinic. AAOHN J. 2004;52:465–75.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Lashuay N, Harrison R. Barriers to occupational health services for low-wage workers in California. A report to the Commission on Health and Safety and Workers’ Compensation, California Department of Industrial Relations. San Francisco: University of California, San Francisco; 2006.

  19. Pransky G, Moshenberg D, Benjamin K, Portillo S, Thackrey JL, Hill-Fotouhi C. Occupational risks and injuries in non-agricultural immigrant latino workers. Am J Ind Med. 2002;42:117–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. de la Hoz RE, Hill S, Chasan R, Bienenfeld LA, Afilaka AA, Wilk-Rivard E, et al. Health care and social issues of immigrant rescue and recovery workers at the World Trade Center site. J Occup Environ Med. 2008;50:1329.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Scherzer T, Wolfe N. Barriers to workers’ compensation and medical care for injured Personal Assistance Services workers. Home Health Care Serv Q. 2008;27:37–58.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. de Castro AB, Fujishiro K, Sweitzer E, Oliva J. How immigrant workers experience workplace problems. A qualitative study. Arch Environ Occup Health. 2006;61:249–58.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. MacEachen E, Kosny A, Ferrier S, Chambers L. The, “toxic dose” of system problems: why some injured workers don’t return to work as expected. J Occup Rehabil. 2010;20:349–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Côté D. Intercultural communication in health care: challenges and solutions in work rehabilitation practices and training: a comprehensive review. Disabil Rehabil. 2013;35:153–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Dressler D, Pils P. A qualitative study on cross-cultural communication in post-accident in-patient rehabilitation of migrant and ethnic minority patients in Austria. Disabil Rehabil. 2009;31:1181–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board. Strategic plan 2012–2016: strategic direction. Toronto: WSIB; 2012.

  27. Gravel S, Brodeur J-M, Vissandjée B, Champagne F, Lippel K. Incompréhension des travailleurs immigrants victimes de lésions professionnelles de leurs difficultés d’accéder à l’indemnisation. Migration et Santé. 2007;131:1–42.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Canadian Heritage. Official language majorities and minorities: an overview. Gatineau: Government of Canada; 2012.

  29. Association of Workers’ Compensation Boards of Canada. Key statistical measures—history/background. 2011. www.awcbc.org/en/keystatisticalmeasureshistorybackground.asp. Accessed 15 Sept 2013.

  30. MacEachen E, Ferrier S, Kosny A, Chambers L. A deliberation on’hurt versus harm’logic in early-return-to-work policy. PPHS. 2007;5:41–62.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Miles MB, Huberman AM. Qualitative data analysis. A sourcebook of new methods. Beverly Hills: SAGE Publications; 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Lippel K. Preserving workers’ dignity in workers’ compensation systems: an international perspective. Am J Ind Med. 2012;55:519–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Soklaridis S, Ammendolia C, Cassidy D. Looking upstream to understand low back pain and return to work: psychosocial factors as the product of system issues. Soc Sci Med. 2010;71:1557–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Friesen MN, Yassi A, Cooper J. Return-to-work: the importance of human interactions and organizational structures. Work. 2001;17:11–22.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Brines J, Salazar M, Graham K, Pergola T. Return to work experience of injured workers in a case management program. AAOHN J. 1999;47:365.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Kirsh B, McKee P. The needs and experiences of injured workers: a participatory research study. Work. 2003;21:221–31.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. MacEachen E, Clarke J, Franche R-L, Irvin E. Systematic review of the qualitative literature on return to work after injury. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2006;32:257–69.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. MacEachen E, Kosny A, Ferrier S, Lippel K, Neilson C, Franche R, et al. The ‘ability’paradigm in vocational rehabilitation: challenges in an Ontario injured worker retraining program. J Occup Rehabil. 2012;22:105–17.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Lynoe N, Wessel M, Olsson D, Alexanderson K, Helgesson G. Does feeling respected influence return to work? Cross-sectional study on sick-listed patients’ experiences of encounters with social insurance office staff. BMC Public Health. 2013;13:1–8.

  40. Roberts-Yates C. The concerns and issues of injured workers in relation to claims/injury management and rehabilitation: the need for new operational frameworks. Disabil Rehabil. 2003;25:898–907.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Butterwick S. Life skills training: Open for discussion. In: Cohen MG, editor. Training the excluded for work: access and equity for women, immigrants, first nations, youth and people with low income. Vancouver: UBC Press; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Ontario Network of Injured Workers Groups. Injured workers and poverty survey. Toronto: Ontario Network of Injured Workers Groups; 2010.

  43. Li PS. Deconstructing Canada’s discourse of immigrant integration. J Int Migr Integr. 2003;4:315–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Boyd M. Immigration trends, language skills and the labour market integration of recent immigrants. Metropolis Conference, “Language Matters” symposium; Ottawa; 2009.

  45. Wayland SV. Unsettled: legal and policy barriers for newcomers to Canada. Ottawa: Law Commission of Canada; 2006.

  46. Office of the Worker Adviser. Returning to work. Ontario; 2013. http://www.owa.gov.on.ca/en/returningtowork/Pages/default.aspx. Accessed Feb 26 2014.

  47. MacEachen E, Kosny A, Ferrier S, Lippel K, Neilson C, Franche R-L, et al. The ideal of consumer choice in social services: challenges with implementation in an Ontario injured worker vocational retraining programme. Disabil Rehabil. 2013;35:2171–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Allan K. Skilling the self: the communicability of immigrants as flexible labour. In: Duchêne A, Moyer M, Roberts C, editors. Language, migration and social (In)equality. A critical sociolinguistic perspective on institutions and work. Toronto: Multilingual Matters; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was funded by Research Grants from McMaster University’s School of Labour Studies and McMaster University Arts Research Board. The author wishes to thank Alicia Shaw for her assistance with researching the appeal decisions and Joel Schwartz for his helpful comments on this manuscript.

Conflict of interest

Author Stephanie Premji declares that she has no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Health, Aging and Society, School of Labour Studies, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Kenneth Taylor Hall, Room 701, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4M4, Canada

    Stephanie Premji

Authors
  1. Stephanie Premji
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephanie Premji.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Premji, S. Barriers to Return-to-Work for Linguistic Minorities in Ontario: An Analysis of Narratives from Appeal Decisions. J Occup Rehabil 25, 357–367 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-014-9544-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-014-9544-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation