The Commission is establishing a Dispute Resolution Program in order to prevent disputes from arising,
wherever possible, and, where they do arise, to address them as early and effectively as possible. The Dispute
Resolution Program is intended to supplement and work in conjunction with the current appeals process. The aim
of the Dispute Resolution Program is to provide all parties with a range of options for discussion on issues
arising from the decisions and orders of the Commission. The design of the program is still at its developmental
stage. The earlier disputes are resolved, the sooner MSDSs will meet compliance standards which will translate
into improved safety in the workplace. The activities, and overall proposed structure of the program,
illustrate the Commission’s creative and accessible approach to expediting appeal and dispute resolution
processes in a manner that is cost-effective and fair to everyone involved.
3. |
Dispute Resolution Program – Action Plans
|
|
3.1
|
Our current appeals process will be examined to see whether it can be simplified and streamlined
to ensure that appeals are heard expeditiously and in a cost-effective manner.
|
3.1.1 |
By developing and distributing two separate fact-finding questionnaires: 1) to evaluate the
existing appeals process from claimants, appellants, affected parties; 2) to obtain information
on similar appeals processes from other agencies/departments.
|
Importance
High
|
Urgency
High
|
|
Lead: Adjudication/Appeals Division
When: February 2000
Support: Legal Services
|
Performance Indicator
Questionnaires sent to stakeholders
|
3.1.2 |
By examining the results of the questionnaires in item 3.1.1, in light of
our Act, regulations/legislative interpretations.
|
Importance
High
|
Urgency
High
|
|
Lead: Adjudication/Appeals Division
When: March 2000
Support: Legal Services
|
Performance Indicator
Analysis completed
|
3.1.3 |
By identifying changes to the process that would be needed to address issues resulting from
questionnaire analysis.
|
Importance
High
|
Urgency
High
|
|
Lead: Adjudication/Appeals Division
When: April 2000
Support: Legal Services
|
Performance Indicator
Report to Management Committee on areas of concern
|
3.1.4 |
By examining the legal implications, including necessary amendments to the Act and Regulations, of
the options considered in item 3.1.3 and making appropriate
recommendations.
|
Importance
High
|
Urgency
High
|
|
Lead: Adjudication/Appeals Division
When: June 2000
Support: Legal Services
|
Performance Indicator
Prioritized list prepared and contacts initiated
|
3.1.5 |
By consulting with tripartite stakeholders on proposed changes to the appeals process.
|
Importance
High
|
Urgency
High
|
|
Lead: Adjudication/Appeals Division
When: August 2000
Support: Legal Services
|
Performance Indicator
Prioritized list prepared and contacts initiated
|
3.1.6 |
By submitting recommendations on proposed changes to HMIRC’s Council of Governors for approval.
|
Importance
High
|
Urgency
High
|
|
Lead: Adjudication/Appeals Division
When: October 2000
Support: Legal Services
|
Performance Indicator
Prioritized list prepared and contacts initiated
|
3.2 |
Consistency of decisions is a fundamental Commission objective and will be enhanced through a
systematic analysis of decisions and orders which have been successfully appealed.
|
3.2.1 |
By developing a process by which all appeal board decisions are examined.
|
Importance
Medium
|
Urgency
High
|
|
Lead: Operations Branch
When: 30 days after next appeal board’s decision
Support: Legal Services
|
Performance Indicator
Recommendation to Management Committee
|
3.2.2 |
By examining the implications of an appeal board’s decision on the Commission’s policy and suggesting
changes (if necessary) in consultation with the Council of Governors
|
Importance
Medium
|
Urgency
High
|
|
Lead: Operations Branch
When: 60 days after appeal board’s decision
Support: Legal Services
|
Performance Indicator
Report/Recommendations to Management Committee
|
3.3 |
A more active participation by the screening officers in the appeals process will be explored.
|
3.3.1 |
By analyzing results from the questionnaires in item 3.1.1 and perceived
problems with the appeals process related to this issue.
|
Importance
Medium
|
Urgency
High
|
|
Lead: Adjudication/Appeals Division
When: March 2000
Support: Legal Services
|
Performance Indicator
Results of questionnaires have been analyzed
|
3.3.2 |
By implementing an internal process of discussion and problem solving, resulting in proposed
solutions.
|
Importance
Medium
|
Urgency
High
|
|
Lead: Adjudication/Appeals Division
When: April 2000
Support: Screening officers, Legal Services
|
Performance Indicator
Proposed solutions to Management Committee
|
3.3.3 |
By proposing recommendations to HMIRC’s Council of Governors.
|
Importance
Medium
|
Urgency
High
|
|
Lead: Adjudication/Appeals Division
When: June 2000
Support: Legal Services
|
Performance Indicator
Recommendations have been made to the Council of Governors
|
3.4 |
We will seek feedback from clients to improve program effectiveness, and we will continue to
consult with other agencies to share innovations and best practices related to the
adjudicative/hearing process.
|
3.4.1 |
By seeking ongoing feedback on program effectiveness from our clients.
|
Importance
High
|
Urgency
Low
|
|
Lead: Adjudication/Appeals Division
When: After appeals process has been reviewed
(item 3.1)
Support: Communications, Legal Services
|
Performance Indicator
Feedback received
|
3.4.2 |
By establishing ongoing contact with other agencies/departments on best practices.
|
Importance
High
|
Urgency
Low
|
|
Lead: Adjudication/Appeals Division
When: Ongoing
Support: Legal Services
|
Performance Indicator
Feedback received
|
3.4.3 |
By reporting findings to Management Committee.
|
Importance
High
|
Urgency
Low
|
|
Lead: Adjudication/Appeals Division
When: Ongoing
Support: Legal Services
|
Performance Indicator
Report to Management Committee
|
3.5 |
We will establish timetables for the delivery of service based on best practices and reasonable
expectations.
|
3.5.1 |
By consulting with staff on which services need a timetable.
|
Importance
Medium
|
Urgency
Low
|
|
Lead: Adjudication/Appeals Division
When: January 2000
Support: All staff
|
Performance Indicator
Responses received
|
3.5.2 |
By consulting with external clients, through the administration of a questionnaire, on their
expectations of our service delivery.
|
Importance
Medium
|
Urgency
Low
|
|
Lead: Adjudication/Appeals Division
When: May 2000
Support: Client Services Division, Communications, Human
Resources
|
Performance Indicator
Client responses received
|
3.5.3 |
By developing a pilot project for the timetables/service standards.
|
Importance
Medium
|
Urgency
Low
|
|
Lead: Adjudication/Appeals Division
When: June 2000
Support: Client Services Division, Communications, Legal
Services
|
Performance Indicator
Monitoring/Evaluating pilot project report
|
3.5.4 |
By finalizing Service Standards and communicating them to clients.
|
Importance
Medium
|
Urgency
Low
|
|
Lead: Adjudication/Appeals Division
When: December 2000
Support: Client Services Division, Communications, Legal
Services
|
Performance Indicator
Publication of Service Standards
|
3.6 |
At the point of inquiry or application, we will provide comprehensible information to clients
regarding the role of the Commission and the procedures used to resolve cases.
|
3.6.1 |
By examining the information/material appropriate for public distribution.
|
Importance
Medium
|
Urgency
Low
|
|
Lead: Adjudication/Appeals Division
When: November 1999—Ongoing
Support: Communications, Legal Services
|
Performance Indicator
Produce assessment report
|
3.6.2 |
By making available appropriate documents, as agreed to, in
item 3.6.1.
|
Importance
Medium
|
Urgency
Low
|
|
Lead: Adjudication/Appeals Division
When: Ongoing
Support: Communications, Legal Services
|
Performance Indicator
Documentation published
|
3.7 |
We will implement a Complaint Management System to deal with service complaints. We will develop
service standards to identify and resolve problems, and a feedback mechanism to identify problems
before they arise, thereby preventing recurring issues. Our staff will be trained to control and
monitor these systems to achieve a high level and quality of service.
|
3.7.1 |
By consulting with other agencies to share best practices.
|
Importance
High
|
Urgency
Medium
|
|
Lead: Adjudication/Appeals Division
When: February 2000
Support: Legal Services, Client Services Division
|
Performance Indicator
Questionnaire feedback
|
3.7.2 |
By defining “complaint” and establishing procedures to track, prioritize, control and monitor
complaints and to provide remedies.
|
Importance
High
|
Urgency
Medium
|
|
Lead: Adjudication/Appeals Division
When: April 2000
Support: Legal Services, Client Services Division
|
Performance Indicator
First draft completed
|
3.7.3 |
By requesting internal feedback/comments on draft procedures.
|
Importance
High
|
Urgency
Medium
|
|
Lead: Adjudication/Appeals Division
When: May 2000
Support: Legal Services, Client Services Division
|
Performance Indicator
Comments received
|
3.7.4 |
By finalizing Complaint Management Guide.
|
Importance
High
|
Urgency
Medium
|
|
Lead: Adjudication/Appeals Division
When: June 2000
Support: Legal Services, Client Services Division
|
Performance Indicator
Final document
|
3.7.5 |
By implementing the procedures outlined in the Guide and training staff to handle complaints.
|
Importance
High
|
Urgency
Medium
|
|
Lead: Adjudication/Appeals Division
When: June 2000
Support: Client Services Division
|
Performance Indicator
Staff trained, system in place
|
3.8 |
We will develop a Dispute Resolution Program through tripartite consultations to define the needs
of our stakeholders. Guidelines will be established for our clients outlining the different
options of the Dispute Resolution Program, while ensuring that a formal recourse mechanism is
available.
|
3.8.1 |
By developing a policy framework for the development of HMIRC’s policies.
|
Importance
High
|
Urgency
Medium
|
|
Lead: Adjudication/Appeals Division
When: December 1999
Support: Legal Services
|
Performance Indicator
Policy framework paper completed
|
3.8.2 |
By submitting the policy framework to Council of Governors Ad Hoc Committee for consideration and
approval.
|
Importance
High
|
Urgency
Medium
|
|
Lead: Adjudication/Appeals Division
When: January 2000
Support: Legal Services
|
Performance Indicator
Policy framework approved
|
3.8.3 |
By monitoring and evaluating the policy process to ensure its application by all policy-making
authorities within the Commission.
|
Importance
High
|
Urgency
Medium
|
|
Lead: Adjudication/Appeals Division
When: Ongoing
Support: Legal Services, Operations Branch
|
Performance Indicator
Detailed review and analysis to Management Committee
|
3.8.4 |
By analyzing results from the questionnaires in item 3.1.1 to
identify areas where dispute resolution models may be appropriate.
|
Importance
High
|
Urgency
Medium
|
|
Lead: Adjudication/Appeals Division
When: March 2000
Support: Legal Services
|
Performance Indicator
Feedback from questionnaires
|
3.8.5 |
By examining a range of options or models to resolve disputes in an informal, expeditious,
cost-effective and fair manner.
|
Importance
High
|
Urgency
Medium
|
|
Lead: Adjudication/Appeals Division
When: April 2000
Support: Legal Services
|
Performance Indicator
Feedback from agencies/departments
|
3.8.6 |
By examining the legal implications, including the necessary amendments to the Act and Regulations,
of the options considered in item 3.8.5 and making appropriate
recommendations.
|
Importance
High
|
Urgency
Medium
|
|
Lead: Adjudication/Appeals Division
When: June 2000
Support: Legal Services
|
Performance Indicator
Recommendations to Management Committee
|
3.8.7 |
By consulting with tripartite stakeholders on proposed dispute resolution model and changes to
Act or Regulations.
|
Importance
High
|
Urgency
Medium
|
|
Lead: Adjudication/Appeals Division
When: August 2000
Support: Legal Services
|
Performance Indicator
Feedback from consultation
|
3.8.8 |
By submitting recommendations to the Council of Governors for consideration and approval.
|
Importance
High
|
Urgency
Medium
|
|
Lead: Adjudication/Appeals Division
When: October 2000
Support: Legal Services
|
Performance Indicator
Report submitted to Council of Governors
|
3.8.9 |
By developing guidelines/training plan for the implementation of a dispute resolution process.
|
Importance
High
|
Urgency
Medium
|
|
Lead: Adjudication/Appeals Division
When: Upon approval and implementation of recommended
changes in item 3.8.8
Support: Legal Services, Human Resources
|
Performance Indicator
Guidelines and training plan developed
|
3.8.10 |
By designing and developing a course outline and course material.
|
Importance
High
|
Urgency
Medium
|
|
Lead: Adjudication/Appeals Division
When: See item 3.8.9
Support: Legal Services
|
Performance Indicator
Framework paper completed
|
3.8.11 |
By selecting/inviting members from the list of nominees to participate in the Dispute Resolution
Training Course.
|
Importance
High
|
Urgency
Medium
|
|
Lead: Adjudication/Appeals Division
When: See item 3.8.9
Support: Legal Services
|
Performance Indicator
List of participants
|
3.8.12 |
By training the staff and nominees selected to deal with dispute resolution.
|
Importance
High
|
Urgency
Medium
|
|
Lead: Adjudication/Appeals Division
When: See item 3.8.9
Support: Legal Services
|
Performance Indicator
Training completed
|
