Barriers to Return-to-Work for Linguistic Minorities in Ontario: An Analysis of Narratives from Appeal Decisions
- 193 Downloads
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.
KeywordsLanguage Workers’ compensation Return to work Disparities
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.
- 1.Statistics Canada. Canada Year Book 2011. Ottawa; 2011.Google Scholar
- 2.Statistics Canada. Population by knowledge of official language, by province and territory (2006 Census). Ottawa; 2007.Google Scholar
- 3.Statistics Canada. Knowledge of official languages by mother tongue, Ontario, 2006. Ottawa; 2011.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
- 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.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.Google Scholar
- 26.Workplace Safety and Insurance Board. Strategic plan 2012–2016: strategic direction. Toronto: WSIB; 2012.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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.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.Google Scholar
- 44.Boyd M. Immigration trends, language skills and the labour market integration of recent immigrants. Metropolis Conference, “Language Matters” symposium; Ottawa; 2009.Google Scholar
- 45.Wayland SV. Unsettled: legal and policy barriers for newcomers to Canada. Ottawa: Law Commission of Canada; 2006.Google Scholar
- 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.
- 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