Unproductive? Systems And Processes Not To Blame?: Respond With Performance Or Disability Management

In this period of continued economic uncertainty, workers are often asked to do more with less. It is common to hear "we just need to be more efficient – work smarter, not harder". That mantra is not ringing true for many human resources professionals anymore. You are challenged with increasing disability claims (often originating out of stress leaves) and guiding frustrated supervisors as they implement performance improvement plans with employees.

A lack of fitness for duty whether caused by stress, fatigue, drug or alcohol use or dependency among other disabilities, has serious occupational health and safety implications. It often also undermines productivity in a fundamental way, as do employees who simply don't perform despite being fit for duty. They negatively affect morale and place unnecessary stress on other workers. They were the inspiration for the term "presentee-ism".

Efficiency is equated with productivity. Google the term productivity and you will get page after page of hits. Wikipedia describes productivity as "a measure of the efficiency of production, [it] is a ratio of what is produced to what is required to produce it".

This approach is straightforward, scientific even.

Dealing with people however, is more of an art. It is a balancing act of knowing how to properly respond to poor productivity, whether it is on a systemic or individual basis. The right answer can lie in performance management on one end of a spectrum, or in an assessment of fitness for duty and disability management on the other. In both the labour and employment contexts, there is a duty to determine what the underlying cause of the low productivity is. If there is a reasonable basis for believing that the employee is not culpable for the lack of productivity, and the systems or processes in place are not the culprits, an underlying disability could well be the cause.

Two cases in the last five years come to mind in the context of employee productivity. They are Poliquin v. Devon Canada Corporation, 2009 ABCA 216 (CanLII) and Foerderer v. Nova Chemicals Corporation, 2007 ABQB 349 (CanLII). Both are examples of employees behaving badly. In each instance, the employees were dismissed for cause and brought wrongful dismissal actions that were ultimately unsuccessful. In Poloquin, the employee was a senior supervisor. His termination for cause was upheld on the basis of his acceptance of free landscaping services from Devon suppliers and for viewing and...