Response from the Ontario Public Service Employees Union on WSIB Rate Modernization

Transcription

1 Response from the Ontario Public Service Employees Union on WSIB Rate Modernization Warren (Smokey) Thomas President Ontario Public Service Employees Union 100 Lesmill Road Toronto, ON M3B 3P8 October 1, 2015

2 Foreword The Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU) represents approximately 130,000 workers across Ontario. They are full and part-time workers, men and women, younger and older. They work for the Ontario government, for community colleges, for the Ontario Liquor Board, and for a wide range of community agencies in the broader public service. Employers fall into two Schedules for the purposes of premium and funding under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act (WSIA). OPSEU has a number of direct Ontario Government workers that fall under Schedule 2 and are not part of the Rate Modernization Strategy. However, many of our employers do fall under Schedule 1 because they are an included industry that requires compulsory coverage, due to the language negotiated in their Collective Agreement or as a result of Schedule 1 Application provisions. Thus, OPSEU is concerned about the issues as it affects our Schedule 1 employers and employees. OPSEU s submissions wish to highlight the following topics: 1. Moving to the North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) 2. Risk Disparity and Expanding the Number of Industry Classes 3. Long Latency Occupational Disease (LLOD) 4. Certification and Non-Compliance 5. Claims Suppression 6. Secondary Injury Enhancement Fund (SIEF) 2 P a g e

3 1. Funding Moving to the NAICS OPSEU supports the move to the proposed Rate Modernization system using the North American Industrial Classification System called NAICS. It is important to move to a national system which shifts the premium distribution to a more realistic claims experience system based on the predominant business activity. This system will be able to take advantage of large pooling, will create stability and provide actuarial predictability. Rate groups will move from the current number of 154 to 32 classes. The actual Class rate allocation will be based on 75% of the shared costs of the employers in the Class with the remaining 25% of the allocation based on actual employer experience. The method will include the use of risk bands for positive and negative premium adjustments to the individual employer premium. The principle of revenue neutrality would shift the premium distribution based on class and individual employer claim experience. However, the proposed system should not encourage employers to focus on cost reduction by claims reporting suppression, reducing appropriate Occupational Health and Safety practices and non-compliance with the Occupational Health and Safety and the Workplace Safety and Insurance Acts. Discussions with the stakeholders and monitoring by the WSIB should take place while the NAICS is being implemented with regard to these issues. The inclusion of all claims experience and costs whether or not there is lost time is appropriate. 2. Risk Disparity/Expanding the Number of Industry Classes OPSEU is not opposed to the expansion of the number of the industry classes from the proposed original 22 Classes to 32 Classes. However, there are concerns about expanding the Classes beyond that number. It is important that Occupational Health and Safety training and practices for the workplace for these Classes be reviewed and strengthened. 3 P a g e

4 3. Long Latency Occupational Disease (LLOD) The issue of how to allocate premium charges for LLOD claims has not been determined and input was requested. OPSEU would support that, if the employer is not in business at the time of the claim cost allocation, that the cost should be assigned to the shared cost of a particular Class. If the employer is still in business, 75% of the cost should be allocated to the Class with some methodology for the remaining 25% of the costs. The WSIB should consider using the Class average for LLOD claims and apply a risk band penalty. However, if the employer experiences extraordinary LLOD claim experience beyond the Class average, greater direct costs should be borne by the individual employer. 4. Certification and Non-Compliance Occupational Health and Safety training for every worksite is vital. The Certification process for employers requires that all certified workers complete, at minimum, Part One Occupational Health and Safety training and depending on the industry, the relevant Part Two training. The WSIB maintains the records of Part One and Part Two training for each employer. OPSEU is concerned that employers are not complying with the necessary training. There is little enforcement with respect to employers non-compliance. It is within the WSIB s ability to check their own records to see if employers have completed the required training. If an employer is not found in compliance, their premiums rates using risk bands should increase accordingly for that year. Once the employer has complied, the premium rate would be adjusted downward the following year, if in compliance. OPSEU believes that the implementation of the process would be easily achievable as the WSIB is the keeper of such records. OPSEU would submit that this process is in keeping with the early warning concept of risk banding for non-compliant employers and promotes best Occupational Health and Safety practices and required training at the workplace. 4 P a g e

5 5. Claims Suppression OPSEU is concerned with any financial incentives that might encourage employers to practice claims suppression. Given that the proposed Rate Modernization system would be based on claims costs, and not solely the number of lost time claims, should help to avoid claims suppression. Allowing workers to report injuries without fear of reprisals leads to the necessary treatment, compensation, and if needed, return to work assistance. It also provides a real focus on improving Occupational Health and Safety objectives at the workplace. Employers were attempting to discourage workers from making WSIB claims under the current premium system. The NAICS system will be based on the real cost of the claims. However, best practices with regards to Occupational Health and Safety should be required at all worksites. Reporting accidents and improving health and safety at the workplace should be encouraged and rewarded. 6. SIEF The previous SIEF policy resulted in distortions among individual employers premium costs in a Class. Unfortunately, the employers often appealed for SIEF relief as a way to reduce the costs of the claims and thus reduce premiums. This is causing undue stress on injured workers, creating uncertainty and increasing significant pressure on an already overburdened appeals system. The proposed rate modernization policy indicates that the combination of appropriately considering the contributing nature of pre-existing conditions and rate stability measures within removes justification for SIEF. Therefore, the SIEF policy will become obsolete and would be eliminated under the proposed NAICS system. OPSEU supports the discontinuance of any employer rebate systems such as SIEF, NEER, MAP and CAD7. 5 P a g e