Re: Letter “Concept of accommodation an Xstrata policy,” by Lori Horner, director of human resources with Xstrata Nickel’s Sudbury operations, which appeared in the Aug. 31 edition of Northern Life.

We are encouraged by Xstrata’s statement that it is working jointly with its unions on a disability management process that ensures each individual case is reviewed and that no employee is presumed to be unable to be accommodated without careful review of the relevant facts pertaining to that employee’s own personal situation. We do agree that Xstrata, the union and the employees share joint responsibility in the accommodation process, as this is stated in the human rights code.

However, in our opinion the employees and the union have been working jointly since the recalls commenced in March, while Xstrata has been unwilling or unable to accommodate their laid off injured workers to date.

It is our understanding that the union has not met with Xstrata to discuss a disability management process and to set up a program that aligns with the human rights code.

In Mr. McIvor’s case, since March of this year, when the recalls commenced, there has not yet been a meeting between the union and the company on an individual case basis to specifically discuss his limitations and restrictions.

Xstrata had no issue prior to the 2009 layoffs in finding modified work arrangements to accommodate the laid off injured workers. But since March 2010, when recalls commenced, no laid off injured workers have been recalled.

All three injured workers have completed FCEs (functional capacity evaluations) months ago as asked by Xstrata, and we feel that is more than sufficient time has since passed.

Xstrata has had plenty of time to assess the FCEs, and these workers should have been recalled by now.

The duty to accommodate does not require the displacement of other employees. Xstrata had a modified centre that was ready to accept these men, and no one would have been displaced if the workers were accommodated there until modified positions were found for them, as Mr. McIvor worked there for some time before he was laid off and found it to be very meaningful work within his restrictions.
As to the comments about seniority rights, Mr. McIvor was 24th on the recall list, and more than 200 people have been recalled.

Not only was Mr. McIvor bypassed in the recalls, but so were the two other laid off injured employees, if you were to take their seniority into consideration.

Lori Horner also mentioned the collective agreement. The human rights code supersedes any collective agreement. She also states that a number of employees have been recalled to accommodated or modified work.

To our knowledge, there have been zero laid off injured workers recalled to accommodated or modified work.

In our opinion, Xstrata should have recalled these employees as their number came up on the recall list, which would have showed these workers that they have the same respect as their co-workers.
Also, Xstrata should have not have put these workers in a position where they felt that they had to stand on the corner with pickets fighting for their recall rights, as this is not seen as treating them with dignity.

If Xstrata would have honestly followed what was written in this letter, these workers would not be in this position today.

These opinions that are written here are not of only one individual, but are the opinions of all members of our committee.

Vicky McIvor spokesperson, Committee of Injured Laid Off Workers at Xstrata Nickel