A Fairfax Company
the SIEF is that the individual employerought not to be charged with the costs <strong>of</strong>a claim when accident or injury is causedor prolonged by a medical condition unrelatedto the work.The purpose <strong>of</strong> SIEF is to encourageemployers to employ disabled workerswho might otherwise have difficultysecuring employment by reducing theemployer’s financial risk. This limitationon costs is designed to remove the financialdisincentive to hiring workers whomay be perceived to be at higher risk <strong>of</strong>having accidents or aggravating pre-existingconditions. This injects an element <strong>of</strong>"fairness" into the allocation <strong>of</strong> claimscosts.Employers take their workers as theycome. The <strong>Ontario</strong> Human Rights Codelimits or prohibits the employer’s ability toenquire into a worker’s medical history.They are not able to monitor or preventpossible recurrences to pre-existing conditions,sinceworkers do not have to declareprior conditions. As a result, employers doProud associates <strong>of</strong> the ECAO,Specializing in the design anddevelopment <strong>of</strong> employee groupbenefit and pension programs from1 employee to 2000,We concentrate on service.ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORnot feel that they should be subjected tothe full cost <strong>of</strong> such a claim. SIEF attemptsto remedy this type <strong>of</strong> situation.Experience Rating (ER) rewards employerswho reduce their accident coststhrough rebates, and penalizes those withexcessive accident costs through surcharges.The clear intent <strong>of</strong> the ER programis to focus assessment costs on thoseemployers who have the worst accidentexperience.Employers, therefore, view SIEF as anequity measure because they only acceptthe consequences and costs <strong>of</strong> a compensableaccident if those consequences andcosts are directly attributable to the workbeing performed while the worker is intheir employ.For employers whose ER programs arebased solely on costs, a 90% reduction inclaims costs is significant and meets theintended outcome <strong>of</strong> fair and equitableallocation <strong>of</strong> those costs. It does not undulypenalize them for hiring a worker witha pre-existing condition or disability.Construction employershowever, areunique in that they arerated under CAD-7,which is the only ERprogram that givesequal weight to bothcosts and Lost-TimeInjury (LTI) frequency.Claims costs <strong>of</strong> morethan $1 outside <strong>of</strong>health care trigger aLost-Time Injury frequencycount. UnderSIEF, even though theyare relieved <strong>of</strong> a substantialportion <strong>of</strong>claims costs, they stillincur an LTI, which can, and <strong>of</strong>ten does,result in a significant penalty.The nature <strong>of</strong> construction work exposesworkers to conditions that could result inthe development <strong>of</strong> "repetitive strain" typeinjuries. Because this type <strong>of</strong> injury developsover a span <strong>of</strong> time that is greater thanis usually spent with one employer, it isvital that construction employers receiveassurance that, if these pre-existing conditionslead to a claim, the SIEF Policy willallocate the costs fairly. Applying an LTI frequencyto an individual employer’s recordon claims that receive significant cost reliefunder SIEF creates an environment thatcould seriously impede the free movement<strong>of</strong> labour in the construction industry.This puts workers, who are entitled tobenefits as a result <strong>of</strong> working many yearsin the industry, at risk. For, while theemployer community generally acceptsthat workers should be entitled to benefitsfor injuries/diseases resulting from work,they feel that there must be a fair and equitableallocation <strong>of</strong> the costs for these type<strong>of</strong> claims to the industry as a whole. Whenan individual employer is penalized for hiringa worker with a pre-existing conditionor disability, the only way the employercan avoid that penalty is to argue that theworker is not entitled to benefits. Also,employers may become extremely wary <strong>of</strong>hiring any employee who might have suchpre-existing conditions.ECAO is currently seeking a course <strong>of</strong>action that restores the element <strong>of</strong> fairnessin the application <strong>of</strong> SIEF by the WSIB. Ifyou have experienced hardship or difficultyresulting from a similar situation, pleasecontact me.Gary Robertson is the HR Specialist atECAO.We want your commentsWrite to: Earle Goodwin, Managing EditorELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION OF ONTARIO170 Attwell Drive, Suite 460,Toronto, <strong>Ontario</strong> M9W 5Z5Tel: 416-675-3226 Fax: 416-675-7736 1-800 387-ECAO (3226)email: egoodwin@ecao.org Web: www.ecao.org<strong>Ontario</strong> <strong>Electrical</strong> Contractor14