Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Standpoint Approach to Return-to-Work Coordination: Understanding Union Roles

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

Abstract

Purpose This study examined how the participation of union representatives impacted return-to-work (RTW) processes, and explored key activities undertaken by union representatives involved in return-to-work coordination. Methods Forty-seven RTW coordinators (RTWCs) participated in in-depth, semi-structured interviews in 2018 as part of a cross-Canadian study investigating their strategies for managing challenges in the RTW process. The study included RTWCs from a variety of organisation types, including unionized organizations. Audio-recordings were transcribed, coded, and analysed using constant case comparison and deviant case analysis leading to the development of findings themes. Results Our findings highlight the role of union representatives in RTW processes and how their activities are seen by other parties involved with work accommodation. First, we describe Union RTWC’s administrative functions and the extent of their involvement in RTW accommodation negotiations. Second, we examine how Union and Non-union RTWCs framed the same RTW processes differently, according to their own accountabilities. Finally, we identify the positive ways that union participation figured into the RTW process, including playing a role in identifying viable modified work and serving as a trusted party to help reluctant workers engage with RTW plans. Conclusions We introduce a standpoint perspective to shed light on how Union and Non-union RTWCs approached accommodation issues and consider acknowledgement of power relations as a starting point for managing divergent interests.

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

Data Availability

Due to the possibility of reidentification of anonymized data through details in the complete data set, this data is not available in a public repository.

Code availability

Not applicable.

Notes

  1. Although many international studies have mentioned unions in RTW (E.g., Corbière’s 2020 review [1]), these do not address the substance of the roles of unions involved in RTW coordination.

References

  1. Corbière M, Mazaniello-Chézol M, Bastien M-F, Wathieu E, Bouchard R, Panaccio A, et al. Stakeholders’ role and actions in the return-to-work process of workers on sick-leave due to common mental disorders: a scoping review. J Occup Rehabil. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-019-09861-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Franche RL, Baril R, Shaw WS, Nicholas M, Loisel P. Workplace-based return-to-work interventions: optimising the role of stakeholders in implementation and research. J Occup Rehabil. 2005. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-005-8032-1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Liukko J, Kuuva N. Cooperation of return-to-work professionals: the challenges of multi-actor work disability management. Disabil Rehabil. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2016.1198428.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. MacEachen E, Ferrier S, Kosny A, Chambers L. A deliberation on “hurt versus harm” logic in early return to work policy. Policy Pract Health Saf. 2007;5(2):41–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 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(3):349–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Lippel K. Therapeutic and anti-therapeutic consequences of workers’ compensation. Int J Law Psychiatry. 1999;22(5–6):521–546.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Robichaud MM, Truchon M, St-Arnaud L, Nastasia I. Insurers’ perspective on barriers and facilitators for return to work after occupational injuries. Work. 2019. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-192910.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kosny A, Brijnath B, Singh N, Allen A, Collie A, Ruseckaite R, et al. Uncomfortable bedfellows: employer perspectives on general practitioners’ role in the return-to-work process. Policy Pract Health Saf. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1080/14774003.2015.11667812.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Stahl C, Svensson T, Petersson G, Ekberg K. A matter of trust? A study of coordination of Swedish stakeholders in return-to-work. J Occup Rehabil. 2010. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-009-9205-0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Seing I, Ståhl C, Nordenfelt L, Bülow P, Ekberg K. Policy and practice of work ability: a negotiation of responsibility in organizing return to work. J Occup Rehabil. 2012. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-012-9371-3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Worker Participation EU: Trade Unions. European Trade Union Institute. 2021 https://www.worker-participation.eu/National-Industrial-Relations/Across-Europe/Trade-Unions2. Accessed 01 Oct 2021.

  12. Union status by industry. Table 14-10-0132-01. Statistics Canada. 2021. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1410013201 Accessed 31 Oct 2021.

  13. Braaf S, Collie A, Ameratunga S, Harrison J, Teague W, Cameron P, et al. A qualitative exploration of return to work in the first 3-Years after serious injury. J Occup Environ Med. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000001719.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Coutu M-F, Gaudreault N, Major M-E, Nastasia I, Dumais R, Deshaies A, et al. Return to work following total knee arthroplasty: a multiple case study of stakeholder perspectives. Clin Rehabil. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269215520984319.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Drolet M, Maunsell E, Mondor M, Brisson C, Brisson J, Masse B, et al. Work absence after breast cancer diagnosis: a population-based study. Can Med Assoc J. 2005. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.050178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kucera KL, Lipscomb HJ, Silverstein B, Cameron W. Predictors of delayed return to work after back injury: a case-control analysis of union carpenters in Washington State. Am J Ind Med. 2009. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajim.20747.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Lipscomb HJ, Dement JM, Silverstein B, Cameron W, Glazner JE. Compensation costs of work-related back disorders among union carpenters, Washington State 1989–2003. Am J Ind Med. 2009. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajim.20715.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Baril R, Clarke J, Friesen M, Stock S, Cole D. Management of return-to-work programs for workers with musculoskeletal disorders: a qualitative study in three Canadian provinces. Soc Sci Med. 2003. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(03)00131-X.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Jodoin S, Harder H. Strategies to enhance labour-management cooperation in the development of disability management programs. Int J Disabil Community Rehabil. 2004; 3(4).

  20. Stergiou-Kita M, Mansfield E, Daiter L, Colantonio A. Good intentions? Employer representative conceptualizations and challenges to the workplace accommodation process: the case of electrical injuries. Empl Responsib Rights J. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10672-014-9242-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Corbière M, Renard M, St-arnaud L, Coutu M, Negrini A, Sauvé G, et al. Union perceptions of factors related to the return to work of employees with depression. J Occup Rehabil. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-014-9542-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kosny A, Lifshen M, Pugliese D, Majesky G, Kramer D, Steenstra I, et al. Buddies in bad times? The role of co-workers after a work-related injury. J Occup Rehabil. 2013. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-012-9411-z.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Jetha A, Le Pouésard M, Mustard C, Backman C, Gignac MAM. Getting the message right: evidence-based insights to improve organizational return-to-work communication practices. J Occup Rehabil. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-021-09961-y.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. 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(4):257–269. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.1009.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. MacEachen E, Lippel K, Saunders R, Kosny A, Mansfield E, Carrasco C, et al. Workers’ compensation experience-rating rules and the danger to workers’ safety in the temporary work agency sector. Policy Pract Health Saf. 2012. https://doi.org/10.1080/14774003.2012.11667770.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Mansfield L, MacEachen E, Tompa E, Kalcevich C, Endicott M, Yeung N. A critical review of literature on experience rating in workers’ compensation systems. Policy Pract Health Saf. 2012. https://doi.org/10.1080/14774003.2012.11667766.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Purse K. Experience rating: an Australian post mortem. Policy Pract Health Saf. 2012. https://doi.org/10.1080/14774003.2012.11667768.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. van Oostrom SH, Anema JR, Terluin B, Venema A, de Vet HCW, van Mechelen W. Development of a workplace intervention for sick-listed employees with stress-related mental disorders: intervention mapping as a useful tool. BMC Health Serv Res. 2007. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-7-127.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Nastasia I, Coutu M-F, Rives R, Dubé J, Gaspard S, Quilicot A. Role and responsibilities of supervisors in the sustainable return to work of workers following a work-related musculoskeletal disorder. J Occup Rehabil. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-020-09896-w.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. MacEachen E, Clarke J, Franche RL, Irvin E. Systematic review of the qualitative literature on return to work after injury. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2006. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.1009.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Eakin J. Towards a “Standpoint” perspective: health and safety in small workplaces from the perspective of the workers. Policy Pract Health Saf. 2010. https://doi.org/10.1080/14774003.2010.11667751.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Clarke AE. Situational analysis: grounded theory after the postmodern turn. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2005.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  33. MacEachen E, Neiterman E, Malachowski C, McKnight E, Crouch M. University of Waterloo. 2020. Road blocks and alternate routes: practical strategies for managing mental health and return to work. https://ellenmaceachen.ca/rtw-mental-health-guide/ Accessed 31 Oct 2021

  34. Coyne IT. Sampling in qualitative research. Purposeful and theoretical sampling; merging or clear boundaries? J Adv Nurs. 1997. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.1997.t01-25-00999.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Green J, Thorogood N. Qualitative methods for health research. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  36. NVivo 11. QSR International. 2015.

  37. Seale C. Quality in qualitative research. In: Seale C, Gobo G, Gubrium JF, Silverman D, editors. Qualitative research practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2004. pp. 409–419.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  38. Collie A, Newnam S, Keleher H, Petersen A, Kosny A, Vogel AP, et al. Recovery within injury compensation schemes: a system mapping study. J Occup Rehabil. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-018-9764-z.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Franche RL, Cullen K, Clarke J, Irvin E, Sinclair S, Frank J. Workplace-based return-to-work interventions: a systematic review of the quantitative literature. J Occup Rehabil. 2005. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-005-8038-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Dol M, Varatharajan S, Neiterman E, McKnight E, Crouch M, McDonald E, et al. Systematic review of the impact on return to work of return-to-work coordinators. J Occup Rehabil. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-021-09975-6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. MacEachen E, McDonald E, Neiterman E, McKnight E, Malachowski C, Crouch M, et al. Return to work for mental ill-health: a scoping review exploring the impact and role of return-to-work coordinators. J Occup Rehabil. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-020-09873-3.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Newnam S, Petersen A, Keleher H, Collie A, Vogel A, McClure R. Stuck in the middle: the emotional labours of case managers in the personal injury compensation system. Work. 2016. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-162406.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Young AE. Return to work stakeholders’ perspectives on work disability. New York: Springer; 2013. pp. 409–423.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Porter S, Lexén A, Bejerholm U. Employers’ beliefs, knowledge and strategies used in providing support to employees with mental health problems. J Vocat Rehabil. 2019. https://doi.org/10.3233/JVR-191049.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Bohatko-Naismith J, James C, Guest M, Rivett DA. The role of the Australian workplace return to work coordinator: essential qualities and attributes. J Occup Rehabil. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-014-9527-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Pransky G, Shaw W, Loisel P, Hong Q, Désorcy B. Development and validation of competencies for return to work coordinators. J Occup Rehabil. 2010. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-009-9208-x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Shaw W, Hong Q, Pransky G, Loisel P. A literature review describing the role of return-to-work coordinators in trial programs and interventions designed to prevent workplace disability. J Occup Rehabil. 2008. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-007-9115-y.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. MacEachen E, Ekberg K. Science, politics, and values in work disability policy: a reflection on trends and the way forward. In: MacEachen E, editor. The science and politics of work disability prevention. New York: Routledge; 2019. pp. 261–283.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Young AE, Wasiak R, Roessler RT, McPherson KM, Anema JR, van Poppel-Bruinvels MNM. Return-to-work outcomes following work disability: stakeholder motivations, interests and concerns. J Occup Rehabil. 2005. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-005-8033-0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Gouin M-M, Coutu M-F, Durand M-J. Return-to-work success despite conflicts: an exploration of decision-making during a work rehabilitation program. Disabil Rehabil. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2017.1400592.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Kealey GS. Workers and Canadian history. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press; 1995.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Research Assistants Nada Dali and Emily Giau for helping in early stages of this research study. We acknowledge the funding support for this research was provided by the Ontario Workplace Safety and Insurance Board grants program.

Funding

This research was funded by the Research and Grants Program of the Workers’ Safety and Insurance Board of Ontario, which runs a competitive, peer-reviewed process.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada

    Pamela Hopwood, Ellen MacEachen, Elena Neiterman, Cindy Malachowski, Ekaterina McKnight, Meghan Crouch & Erica McDonald

Authors
  1. Pamela Hopwood
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ellen MacEachen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Elena Neiterman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Cindy Malachowski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ekaterina McKnight
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Meghan Crouch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Erica McDonald
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Hopwood conducted data analysis and wrote the paper with Ellen MacEachen. MacEachen was the PI for this study and was responsible for study design and oversight. Neiterman and Malachowski were Co-Investigators and McKnight was the project manager. MacEachen, Neiterman, Malachowski and McKnight conducted the interviews. All authors except Hopwood contributed to code development and coding. McKnight, Crouch, McDonald and Hopwood assisted with in-depth analysis. All authors provided feedback on code analysis and the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ellen MacEachen.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

Ethical Approval

Ethics approval for this study was provided by University of Waterloo Research Ethics Board (REB #22921)

Consent to Participate

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000 (5). Informed consent was obtained from all participants for being included in the study.

Consent for Publication

All participants in this research study consented to the publication of anonymous quotes.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hopwood, P., MacEachen, E., Neiterman, E. et al. A Standpoint Approach to Return-to-Work Coordination: Understanding Union Roles. J Occup Rehabil 32, 564–573 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-022-10025-y

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-022-10025-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation