Fair Practices Commission

1
Fair Practices Commission

• 5 Year Review
• The Schedule 2 Employers Group
• 20th Annual Conference
• September, 2009

2
Agenda

• Background
• History
• Charter
• Role and mandate
• Goal
• Fairness Benchmarks
• By the numbers
• Common Employer Issues
• Outcomes
• Systemic issues
• WSIB response
• Effectiveness measures
• Issues relevant to Schedule 2 Employers
  Examples/Discussion

3
History

• Board of Directors approved creation of Fair
  Practices Commission
• Commissioner hired in August, 2003
• FPC opened to public on a phased-in basis in
  January 2004 opened across province by April 15,
  2004.

4
Charter

• WSIB Board of Directors approved Charter in
  March, 2004
• Provides details of Commissions role, mandate,
  and operations.
• Charter protects independence Commissioner can
  only be removed for just cause which does not
  include disagreement with Commissioners reports
  or recommendations.

5
Role

• Ombudsman Process Watchdog
• Follow Ombudsman Principles
• Independent arms-length relationship with
  WSIB
• Neutral hear from all sides
• Confidential dont share information without
  consent
• Report to WSIBs Board of Directors and to Public

6
Mandate

• Individual to resolve complaints brought by
  employers, workers and service providers.
• Systemic to identify system-wide process issues
  and recommend improvements to WSIB services.
• Exclusions - mandate does not include complaints
  about OEA, OWA or WSIAT.
• - cannot change entitlement decisions, law or
  policy, or get involved in appealable issues.

7
Goal

• To ensure the requirements of natural justice and
• procedural fairness are met, including
• Notice
• Lack of bias
• Opportunity to provide information

8
Fairness Benchmarks

• Delay Is there an unreasonable delay in making
  a decision or taking action?
• Communication Were clear reasons provided for
  decisions were next steps or options
  explained?
• Behaviour Was staff unbiased and objective when
  reviewing information? Was staff courteous and
  professional?
• Decision-making Did the person or organization
  affected by a
• Process decision have an opportunity to
  provide information
• or to respond to information?

9
Number of Complaints

• First 5 Years
• Complaints have settled at approximately 2000 per
  year

10
Who Brings Complaints?
Workers 93 Employers 6 External
Service 1 Providers
11
Breakdown by Fairness Benchmarks

• Delay 40
• Communication 6
• Behaviour 6
• Decision-Making
• Process 8
• Approximately 400 cases per year are referred to
  specialists.
• Specialists inquiries are resolved within 7
  days, on average.

12
Common Employer Issues

• Include
• No return telephone call or response to letters
• No opportunity to present information before
  decision is made
• Reconsideration process unfair or incomplete
• Disagreement with interpretation or
  implementation of policies

13
Outcomes

• In resolving individual fairness issues, the
  Commission may
• suggest that the WSIB
• Put it right take action on a delay, correct
  an omission or oversight
• Give further reasons for a decision
• Offer an apology
• Develop a protocol or procedure
• Review its service standards
• Consider further staff training

14
Systemic Issues

• A systemic issue is a process problem that
  affects a number of cases
• It is bigger than the circumstances of an
  individual case

15
Systemic Issues

• Commission identifies systemic issues in 3 main
  ways
• An individual complaint from one company, one
  organization or one person may indicate a broader
  problem
• A representative may bring a number of cases that
  raise a common concern
• Commissions review of its statistics may show a
  trend or pattern that needs to be addressed

16
WSIB Response

• The Operations Planning and Implementation
  Division (OPID) addresses
• systemic issues identified by the Commission
• Commission staff meet bi-monthly with OPID to
  discuss emerging or on-going issues
• Issues are tracked and include steps taken to
  resolve issues
• Commissioner reports issues to BOD and includes
  them in annual reports
• contd.

17

• Examples of Process Changes based on Employer
  complaints
• appeal participant forms were changed and now
  include
• consequences of not returning form
• notice of potential third party action includes
  new Q and A on
• website and training to help case managers
  identify cases where
• notice under s.30 may be required.
• Effectiveness?
• New service delivery model launched in September,
  2008
• incorporates fairness principles.

18
Effectiveness Measures

• WSIB acts on Commissions recommendations
• Commission resolves all complaints with
  identified fairness issues.
• Board of Directors is supportive of Commissions
  work.
• Public annual reports
• not vetted by WSIB
• allow scrutiny of Commissions work by
  stakeholder community
• contd..

19

• Ombudsman Ontario
• oversees Commission
• no supported complaints to date
• complaints to Ombudsman Ontario about WSIB have
  decreased significantly
• since Commission was established
• Independent external review of Commission
• Overall, found Commission
• provides excellent value for money
• is effective and efficient
• has achieved an overall client satisfaction
  rating that most public and
• private organizations would envy

20
Issues Relevant to Schedule 2 Employers

• EXAMPLES
• DISCUSSION