Most Ontario businesses think their WSIB NEER statement is complicated. 

They're right, but consider the statements for larger organizations or those with complex structures that have an Organizational Statement or multiple NEER statements?

What is an Organizational Statement:

• NEER statement for a company with more than one account within the same rate group (industry)
• These separate accounts are combined on one NEER Organizational statement

How do they differ from a regular NEER statement?

• NEER costs for each individual account are capped at 4 times expected costs at the Organizational level – not at the individual account level
  
• Individual Accounts Performance index can exceed 4.00
• Individual NEER statement refund/surcharge amounts are calculated first for each account, then separate calculation under the organizational “umbrella”

What if my company has accounts in different rate groups?

• Some companies have different areas/departments that cross rate groups (industry types)
• They will receive more than one NEER statement

What should I watch out for if I have more than one NEER statement?

• Ensure that an injured worker is assigned to the proper rate group
• Ensure correct accident is being charged to the proper rate group

What if I have an employee that crosses two areas with different rate groups?

• Segregated payroll may be necessary to ensure correct reporting
  

Is there ever a statute of limitations when you discover that an employee has lied on their resume or a job application?

This month a senior executive at WalMart in the U.S. was forced to resign after the company discovered he had lied about completing his university degree. David Tovar, an 8 year veteran of the company, attended the University of Delaware but ultimately was "a couple of credits short" of completion. He served as Vice President, Corporate Communications and was in the process of being promoted to a Senior V.P. position when a routine background check discovered his education history. Source: NY Times

Similarly, Yahoo chief executive Scott Thompson was forced to resign from the tech company in 2012 after it was discovered he had lied about completing a computer science degree. Source: The Guardian

A Canadian example occurred in 2013 when Chris Spence was forced to leave his position as a director for the Toronto District School Board when he admitted to plagiarizing portions of an editorial he wrote for the Toronto Star. Later, officials at the University of Toronto accused him of academic dishonesty and plagiarism on his 1996 PhD thesis. Source: Toronto Sun

Issues for HR managers

Discovering that someone has lied on their resume after the fact, particularly someone in a senior position, can be embarassing for the company and disruptive for your workforce.

The best way to avoid this is a rigorous interview process that includes challenging applicants on the most common resume misrepresentations, including:

• Stretched dates to cover any potential gaps in employment history (go through the resume thoroughly and ask specific questions around dates in the interview)
• Enhanced job titles, level of authority or salary (these can be confirmed during reference checks)
• Embellished job duties and achievements (ask behavioural questions to clarify what they actually did and which successes were individual or part of a larger team)
• Invented past employers (a quick Google search is good idea)
• Falsified or non-existent degrees or certifications (you may request proof of the certifications)

For additional interview tips, including the fact that you should always, always, always perform reference checks, see our recent blogs "Hiring Lessons from the Lance Armstrong Scandal" and "Five Mistakes Interviewers Make."

Is a "zero tolerance policy" the right approach?

Many companies are moving towards establishing a "zero tolerance" policy for lying or exaggerating about credentials during the hiring process. They provide each candidate with a form to sign stating that everything they have shared is accurate and that they understand that any type of fraud will lead to termination.

Having such a policy does offer a clear course of action when faced with this situation: investigate and if charges of fraud or misrepresentation prove corrrect, terminate.

However, a "zero tolerance" policy does not allow for any discretion on the part of an HR manager or business owner. One can imagine a case where someone has been successfully performing duties for many years and is suddenly shown the door due to an error in judgment perhaps decades earlier. 

With reference to the WalMart executive forced to resign, Clear Path's Lindsay Majkic confirms the dilemma HR managers face. "Obviously he has demonstrated his ability to perform the duties of his job. But forgiving a senior team member for lying or exaggerating is a slippery slope."

What approach does you organization use? Do you prefer to have a clear policy or want the freedom to make decisions on a case-by-case basis?

Ready to learn more?

The team of HR consultants at Clear Path are available to help you with your HR questions. Contact us today at info@clearpathemployer.com or (519) 624-0800.

We are also holding two informative learning sessions you may be interested in attending:

• Hiring & Firing Effectively on September 25th
• Setting Rules of the Game (Creating an Employee Manual) on November 6th

You've undoubtedly heard of the recent high-profile cases where individuals have behaved very badly in their private lives, leading to discipline or termination from their jobs. These incidents also highlighted some do's and don'ts for employers on how to handle these difficult situations. A few examples:

Ray Rice suspended indefinitely from NFL for spousal abuse

Baltimore Ravens running back Ray Rice punched his then-fiancee (now wife) in the face, knocking her unconscious, at an Atlantic City hotel in February 2014. He was arrested and subsequently indicted for 3rd degree aggravated assault, but avoided prosecution by being approved for a pretrial intervention program and attending anger management counseling. The NFL initially suspended him for two games in July, but the ongoing controversy and additional video footage of the assault led them to suspend him indefinitely as of September 8th. He is currently appealing the decision. (Source: ABC News)

Another NFL star gets into legal hot water

​Following an indictment on a felony count of reckless or negligent injury to a child after whipping his 4-year-old son, Minnesota Vikings running back Adrian Peterson was first cleared to play in an upcoming game against New Orleans and then placed on the NFL's exempt list as of Sep 17th. This bars him from all team activities until his child abuse case is resolved - however he will continue to earn his salary. (Source: ESPN)

U.S. CEO faces public fury for mistreating dog in elevator

​Catering company CEO Desmond Hague was captured on video repeatedly kicking a puppy in an elevator in British Columbia. Public outrage after the video was publicized led to apologies from Hague and a requirement to donate $100,000 to charity and complete 1,000 hours of community service. Continued calls to boycott the company led Hague to resign earlier this month. The company quickly replaced him with a new CEO. (Source: CTV Vancouver) 

Tricky questions for HR managers

These controversial cases highlight a number of tricky questions for HR managers when faced with an employee who has behaved inappropriately or illegally outside of the work environment:

• If the legal system does not pursue charges against an individual, should the workplace punish them for the behaviour that got them into trouble?
• Should public opinion, media coverage or social media posts be the catalyst for a decision to terminate an employee, particularly if you have already disciplined them?
• Many would agree that if an employee's actions outside of work damage the reputation of the company, then a termination is justified. These high profile cases would meet that criteria. But what if an employee gets into legal trouble and it does not negatively impact the company? 
• If an employee's work performance is good, should non-work-related activities be considered at all?

The Canadian perspective:

Because most states in the U.S are "employment-at-will" states, an employer does not need a reason to fire an employee and is free to do so at any time regardless of reason. In this type of employment arrangement, engaging in immoral or unethical conduct outside the workplace could be grounds for termination. (Source) 

However, according to Clear Path's Anna Aceto-Guerin, “this is far from reality in Ontario.”  

Can an Ontario employer terminate someone for behaviour outside of the workplace? The answer is… it’s complicated. Ontario is not a “fire at will” province and unfortunately there is no blanket answer to this question. You need to look at the facts of each individual case and assess the risk in each situation. It is often challenging for an employer in Ontario to terminate “for cause” even when there are clearly documented performance issues. Attempting to terminate someone “for cause” for behaviour outside of the workplace can be exponentially trickier.

Acts both criminal (arrested for a DUI, possession of child pornography, child abuse or domestic violence) and those deemed “immoral” by an employer (involvement in an extramarital affair, affiliation with a controversial organization) may cause an employer to want to remove someone from the organization, even if the employee’s actions took place exclusively outside of the workplace. The question becomes whether or not they can terminate “for cause” and not have to pay out the appropriate termination pay and/or severance. 

Some things for an employer to consideration include:

• Does the employee’s behaviour specifically damage the reputation of your organization or is it simply abhorrent to the employer? For example, was the employee wearing a company uniform while participating in the activity or was your company named in any media coverage related to the incident?
• Does the employee have a known addiction to alcohol or drugs? If so, this is considered a disability in Ontario and terminating them may result in a Human Rights challenge.
• Does your company have written policies regarding terminations for non-workplace behaviour? Do you have an enforceable “morals clause” in your employment agreement? Have you consistently applied this policy in the past?
• Does the nature of the incident hamper the employee’s ability to perform their work duties? For example, a teacher or camp counselor involved in a public scandal may not be able to work with minors. A sales person or truck driver who regularly visits the United States may no longer be able to cross the border with an arrest record.

Long story short, this process should be handled with careful thought and the advice of HR and/or legal professionals.  You can contact the team at Clear Path for advice for any of your HR questions.

Want to learn more?

Clear Path has two upcoming learning sessions that you may be interested in:

• September 25: Hiring & Firing Effectively
• November 6: Establishing Rules of the Game (Creating an Employee Policy Manual)

This month our spotlight is on HR Consultant Margaret Sullivan Williams:

Fun Fact: I'm an accordion-playing former model 
who has sung in Celtic and Jazz bands

Hometown: Guelph, Ontario

Alma Mater: University of Guelph

Dog Person or Cat Person: Dog

Favourite Author(s): Too many to list


Funniest HR question you've ever been asked:
Clients have asked me whether or not they should "fire" someone who is a) in jail or b) dead

What is your idea of perfect happiness?  Family time on a beach!

Which living or deceased person(s) do you most admire?
Anyone who challenged the status quo. Suffragettes, Great Thinkers, Inventors & Pioneers

What is your greatest extravagance?
A long walk, relaxing swim or spa day

What do you consider the most overrated virtue?
Humility, because I think it confuses people. It is about thinking of yourself less, not thinking less of yourself.

What talent would you most like to have?
Musical virtuoso - any instrument

If you were to die and come back as a person or a thing, what would it be?
I'd like to be myself again, but start anew and take a couple of different paths

Who is your hero in fiction (character in a book, movie or TV show)?
Owen Meany, from John Irving's A Prayer for Owen Meany. I can still hear his voice years after reading the book.

What is your personal motto?
Create the workplace you want to work in!

You can learn more about Margaret on her Bio page. She'd also love to hear from you at margaret@clearpathemployer.com

A June 2014 article in The Toronto Star entitled "Workplace Safety Insurance Board steps up spying on clients, documents show" claimed there was evidence of increased use of surveillance by the WSIB on suspicious benefit recipients.

The article is sympathetic to the plight of the injured workers involved and suggests the investigations may be unfair and unjust. Most of the individuals mentioned in the article are long-time recipients of WSIB benefits, with injuries dating back nearly a decade. It infers that the WSIB's aggressive cost-cutting efforts may be the reason for the surveillance.

We spoke with two of Clear Path's WSIB claims management experts, Anna Aceto-Guerin and Michelle Strassburger, to get their perspective on this controversy.

Q: The Toronto Star published an article stating that the WSIB is increasingly using private investigators. Have you seen evidence of this? 

Anna Aceto-Guerin: No, I have not seen evidence of increased use of private investigators or other surveillance techniques by the WSIB. Actually, in the past it has been difficult to get the WSIB to use private investigators, even when the employer had suspicions about philandering or fraud. If the employer had concerns, the WSIB typically will not investigate unless there is some kind of evidence (such as a witness statement).

Q: It seems that most of the individuals in the article were long-term benefit recipients. Does that change your perspective?

Anna Aceto-Guerin: The vast majority of claims we work on in our consulting firm are more recent and within the client's 4 year NEER window. So if the WSIB is increasing its use of surveillance on long-term claimants, we would not typically see that.

However, if the WSIB is investigating long-term claimants, I don't see that as necessarily a bad thing. In the Workplace Safety & Insurance Act, people are obligated to report any changes in their health (including positive changes or improvements) to the WSIB if they are receiving benefits. But anecdotal evidence suggests that the vast majority of people do not do this. Sometimes an injured worker receives a "Permanent Impairment” status prematurely, so if they begin to improve they should be reporting that. They may be receiving long-term benefits but are no longer as disabled as they were initially assessed at. In cases like that, the WSIB may be justified to take a closer look.

Do you have any experience with the use of private investigators?

Anna Aceto-Guerin: Some employers do hire a PI when they are suspicious about the validity of an employee's claim. However, we generally recommend that employers use the WSIB's TIPS line. Then the ball is in the WSIB's court to pursue an investigation if appropriate.

WSIB TIPS Line: 1-888-SI-LEADS (1-888-745-3237) 7:30am to 5:00pm, Monday to Friday or by email at sileads@wsib.on.ca 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

Q: Michelle, have you had experience with private investigators?

Michelle Strassburger: I've had clients use them, but never hired them myself for any of the companies I have worked for.

Q: Have you known the WSIB to initiate the use of surveillance?

Michelle Strassburger: Not on a regular basis, but it does happen. I've had a couple of recent experiences with Clear Path clients where the WSIB did investigate a claim without our request. One of them involved a worker who had submitted 3 or 4 claims within a year's time and they wanted to send him to their own psychologist to determine entitlement for PTSD. They were satisfied with the results of the investigation and the PTSD claim was allowed.

Q: Do you have any suggestions for employers who do use private investigators?

Anna Aceto-Guerin: If you decide to engage a private investigator you should be clear on what you want to achieve. It is the denial of initial or ongoing entitlement that you are seeking? Or perhaps it is an issue with the suitability of modified work offered when the worker is saying they are too disabled to participate (but you've heard that they are waterskiing on the weekends). 

Here is a list of things to consider:

• Be clear on what you are trying to achieve
• Have multiple days of footage, not just one (regardless of how "damning" the evidence is)
• For video surveillance, consider chain of custody
• Acquire a signed WSIB policy statement from the author
• Include details like the date and time where the recording was made
  
• Ensure that the recording is not altered and is a true representation of its subject

As well, keep in mind the costs incurred by your company during this process. Make sure that the cost-benefit of using a private investigator is justified.

Want to learn more?

Clear Path has a number of valuable learning sessions coming up that will help you increase your knowledge and give you strategies on effective claims management, including:

• Advanced Disability Management (Complex Claims, Mental Health, WSIB Appeals) on Sep 18th in Mississauga. Click here to learn more.
• Introduction to the WSIB's NEER Program (hands on workshop using real-world scenarios) on Sep 30th in Kitchener, Nov 26th in Cambridge, Dec 4th in Mississauga, and Dec 11th in Guelph. Click here to learn more.
• Advanced NEER Strategies (includes how to forecast claim costs) on Oct 9th in Toronto/ Markham. Click here to learn more.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact Anna Aceto-Guerin at (519) 624-0800 or via email at anna@clearpathemployer.com.

There is a growing movement to change the way businesses recruit new team members, one that seems counter-intuitive but is freakishly effective. In short, place obstacles in front of those applying to work for your company in order to ensure you are bringing on people that are truly committed and possess the right attitude for your workplace.

Economist Steven D. Levitt and journalists Stephen J. Dubner, bestselling authors of Freakonomics (2005) and SuperFreakanomics (2009), have released a new book called Think Like A Freak (2014) that encourages readers to consider new ways of approaching common tasks in life and business.

One of the strategies Levitt & Dubner espouse is to "get your garden to weed itself" during the hiring process. Most traditional hiring processes rely on the use of resumes, testing and 1-on-1 interviews to select candidates, ideally from the largest possible applicant pool. Most hiring managers focus primarily what skills the candidate possesses and a disproportionately small amount of time looking at indicators of attitude. What if there were ways you could get the wrong candidates to de-select themselves for you?

The authors recommend adding additional steps to dissuade people who may not be truly serious from applying, rather than having simple clicking a button or send an email with their resume. Companies balk at this suggestion, fearing that it will limit the candidate pool. Doesn't a wider pool mean better candidates? Not necessarily. Imagine the benefit of "weeding out" those not truly committed: fewer resumes to read, fewer interviews to hold, lower chance of having a newly hired person quit after a short stay.

Levitt & Dubner also reference the policy of U.S. shoe company Zappos to offer new hires $2,000 to quit at the end of their training process. CEO Tony Hsieh says this helps them discover whether the employee "cares more about money or [if they] care more about this culture and the company” He reasons that any worker who opted for the cash wasn’t the right fit and would cost the company in the long run.

A Different Type of Hiring Process

The business coaches at ActionCoach, including our own coach Tony Roy, have been long-time advocates of a systemized approach to hiring that includes multiple opportunities for a candidate to de-select themselves. 

Our company has used many of the recommendations of ActionCoach's Hiring Process. We have found that adding fairly benign obstacles during the application process, including requiring candidates to leave a voice message during specific hours answering three easy questions, helps us to:

• Get a sense of how the candidate communicates on the phone
• Get an initial perspective on their qualifications
• Eliminate those not willing to take this step (we have noticed that as little as 10% of those who clicked on an online ad actually left a phone message)

Benefits of the de-selection process

The purpose of the process is to ensure that the candidates applying for the position:

1. Are willing and open to do a little different process. Really good candidates will hear the message, hang up, prepare their answers and then phone back in – you will hear the difference in their answers.
2. Are willing to follow the process – if they do find out who the company is and by-pass the phone message and just send in their resume they have effectively de-selected themselves.
3. They are willing to put themselves in competition for the position and can handle the pressure of a group interview – which takes most people out of their comfort zone. They actually are willing to put out significant effort to come work for you!
4. It also has the added benefit that it prevents the company from having to sort through hundreds of resumes that generally inundate an owner or HR office. This saves incredible amounts of time and energy.

This process has proven time and again to deliver high success rates in hiring candidates that come with a great attitude, fit well into the organization and become long-term, productive employees.

For additional tips on reference checks and interview skills, check out our previous blogs:

• Hiring Lessons from the Lance Armstrong Scandal
• Five Mistakes Interviewers Make

Want to learn more?

Gain more insights at Clear Path's upcoming learning session, Hiring & Firing Effectively on September 25th. Click here to learn more and to register. You can also contact Anna Aceto-Guerin anytime to answer your HR questions at (519) 624-0800 or anna@clearpathemployer.com.