It's embedded in our legislation that both parties have a requirement to co-operate in the return-to-work planning. The employer has an obligation, once they hear what a worker's abilities are, to review their workplace to determine what jobs and duties could be offered to that employee. The worker has an obligation, under our legislation, to co-operate in that return-to-work planning, so from the get-go, the expectation is there.
That doesn't always work, so we have collaborative planing. As I said at the very beginning, in any contentious case, one where we haven't had someone go back to work already, we'll get a work transition specialist or a return-to-work specialist to the job site, with both parties, to commence that planning. In terms of how forceful we are, with the co-operation provision, they have no choice. You have to come to the meeting. If you don't, we'll find you. If the worker says they're not interested at all, we'll say that if there's a job offered and we determine it to be good, then their benefits will be affected, because they're not co-operating and the job is custom-made for the type of accident or injury they had.
If the employer is not compliant, we have some means with which to find them, but we will also continue to pay the worker and perhaps go in a separate direction. Again, this is an insurance system, so they're paying more money because they have not had the wherewithal to bring their workers back to work.
In terms of how forceful we are, once there are abilities, there is a press for us to get the worker back to successful work. We're not looking for modified jobs that are pretend or—