1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar

MOL inspector’s compliance orders, claiming that employer’s harassment investigation was not “appropriate”, suspended on appeal

The Ontario Labour Relations Board has suspended a Ministry of Labour inspector’s compliance order relating to an employer’s harassment investigation after the employer appealed the orders and the complainant resigned.

The MOL inspector’s compliance order read as follows:

The employer shall ensure that an investigation is conducted into incidents and complaints of workplace harassment that is appropriate in the circumstances to protect a worker from workplace harassment.  At the time of this visit, additional information regarding an allegation of workplace harassment was reported to the employer by this Inspector and an investigation appropriate in the circumstances had not been conducted by the employer.

The OLRB noted that the person who filed the harassment complaint and reported it to the MOL had since resigned. Also, the employer said that it had investigated the complaint and reported the result to the parties.

The OLRB stated that there was nothing in the application (the appeal document) suggesting that there would be ongoing safety issues posed to any workers, including the worker who complained, if the compliance orders were not suspended.

Because the MOL had not opposed the employer’s request for suspension of the compliance order, the “low threshold for establishing a prima facie case” had been met.  There did not appear to be any reason to defer to the MOL inspector. The compliance order was therefore suspended pending the result of the appeal.

TSR Industrial Maintenance Inc. v Laszlo Brian Czako, 2018 CanLII 25434 (ON LRB)

MOL inspector’s compliance orders, claiming that employer’s harassment investigation was not “appropriate”, suspended on appeal

Harassment arbitration hearing should be open to the public, including the press, arbitrator rules

A police union’s harassment grievance arbitration hearing should be open to the public, including the press, despite the sensitive issues that it raised, a labour arbitrator has ruled. The case illustrates the publicity risk that employers face in many workplace disputes, and the need for employers to consider publicity when analyzing litigation risk.

The grievance alleged that the police services board failed to provide a harassment-free workplace to its civilian members. The issues had resulted in two workplace investigations that had not resolved the dispute.

The arbitrator noted the general requirement, under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, that a hearing be open to the public. The police board argued that the press should be excluded.  Two officials with the police force, who were “interested parties” at the arbitration, argued that the hearing should be held in camera – that is, closed to the public and the media.

The arbitrator disagreed. There were a number of factors in favour of having an open-to-the-public  hearing.  This was not a case about a single employee; it raised broader issues about the workplace.  A number of members of the police service were already aware of the case.  The police service was a public body, which was a strong factor in favour of having the hearing be open to the public including the press. The particular reporter who wished to attend the hearing had said that he would not audio-record it, and the risk that media reports would influence witnesses who had not yet testified was low. Although some of the evidence at the hearing might reflect poorly on some of the participants, the arbitrator noted that there may be publicity about this matter regardless of whether media is present.

In the result, the arbitrator ruled that the hearing be open to the public.

Durham (Regional Police Association) v Durham (Regional Police Services Board), 2018 CanLII 28649 (ON LA)

Harassment arbitration hearing should be open to the public, including the press, arbitrator rules

Armoured car employee’s work refusal due to Christmas crowds was not justified

A federal adjudicator has decided that an armoured car worker was not justified in refusing to do a “run” at a mall because of the crowds during the Christmas shopping season.

The employee claimed that due to crowds, he was unable to maintain a “21 foot perimeter” when he went into the mall, crowded with Christmas shoppers, and that that put him at increased risk of a robbery.  He therefore argued that under the Canada Labour Code, he was justified in refusing to work.

The adjudicator rejected the employee’s argument, finding that the evidence had not proven that there were serious crowds at the mall in the morning when he did the “run”. Further, there  had not been a robbery at the particular shopping centre in the last 10 years.  The adjudicator concluded that the employee was not exposed to an imminent or serious threat to his life or health.  Therefore his work refusal was not justified.

The adjudicator’s decision may be read here.

Armoured car employee’s work refusal due to Christmas crowds was not justified

Nurse’s critical comments at union conference about workplace violence in hospitals were not just cause for dismissal

A mental health nurse whose critical comments, in a closed-door union meeting, about workplace violence in hospitals were later published online by a local newspaper and in a union press release without her knowledge or permission, has been reinstated by an arbitrator with back pay.

The comments in the union press release that were attributed to the nurse included:

“Staff at hospitals with forensic psychiatric units or those with medium security units where patients come direct from area prisons are “easy targets for violence” on understaffed wards. Many of these patients are strong and aggressive young offenders and nurses are told that “the violence is part of the work we do. Nurses are often blamed directly by the employer for the assaults that are directed at them. Or supervisors tell nurses ‘thanks for taking one for the team’. Often nurses face reprisals for reporting incidents of violence and when we demand increased security matters,’ says Sue McIntyre a North Bay psychiatric RPN.”

When her comments were published online by the local paper, the nurse intervened and had the comments taken down within three hours of being posted. The employer concluded that the comments were about the hospital and its staff and patients, not general comments about hospitals, and that the comments were false and had harmed the hospital’s reputation.  It dismissed her, claiming just cause.

The union grieved the dismissal. The arbitrator decided that dismissal was excessive.  A one-week suspension was more appropriate. The comments were made at a legitimate closed-door trade union meeting about workplace safety.  Workplace violence was an important issue in the hospital sector.  Media were not present or invited.  The nurse did not intend the comments to be public.  She was given very little time to think about and prepare her comments.  The union press release and newspaper article were published without her knowledge or consent.  She took prompt steps to have any comments attributed to her removed from those documents.

The arbitrator decided, however, that it was not entirely unforeseeable that the comments would become public, so she must bear some responsibility for the words that she spoke.  Also, the comments were not truthful to the extent that they were comments about the hospital at which she worked.  She had previous discipline on her record.  In the circumstances, a one-week suspension was appropriate, and the employer was ordered to reinstate the nurse with back-pay.

North Bay Regional Health Centre v Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 139, 2018 CanLII 6645 (ON LA)

Nurse’s critical comments at union conference about workplace violence in hospitals were not just cause for dismissal

Banned from pool and fitness facility, man who requested “young, hot female trainer” was not discriminated against because of mental disability

A man who requested that a municipal pool and fitness facility provide him with a “young, hot female trainer like” (name redacted), and who earlier had swam up to three nine-year-old boys playing on a floating raft and engaged in conversation with them, was not discriminated against because of a physical or mental disability when the facility banned him.

The man filed a complaint with the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal asserting that the facility had discriminated against him because of a disability (hypoglycemia, which he said affected his cognition in these instances, and depression).

The Tribunal dismissed his complaint. The Tribunal noted that the complainant had provided no medical evidence that hypoglycemia affected his conduct.  At the time of the events, the complainant gave no indication that he was experiencing symptoms of hypoglycemia.  Also, nothing in the complainant’s evidence suggested that his disabilities, either physical or mental, were known or readily observable, and therefore the facility had no “duty to inquire” into whether he had a mental disability that had influenced his actions.

The Tribunal stated that the complainant’s email setting out his request for a female trainer was “reflective of attitudes that found expression in a bygone era and that are inappropriate, particularly in the circumstances of this case. The Complainant’s email does not reflect an uncontrollable comment blurted out, but rather appears to reflect a deliberate train of thought.”

In the result, the Tribunal dismissed the complaint in its entirety.

Hammell v. Corporation of Delta and another, 2017 BCHRT 246 (CanLII)

Banned from pool and fitness facility, man who requested “young, hot female trainer” was not discriminated against because of mental disability

Webinar: Employment and Labour law trends to watch for in 2018

Start: February 14, 2018, 12:00 PM EST
End: February 14, 2018, 1:00 PM EST

This session is only available via webinar

2018 has arrived with a roar as workplaces across Canada grapple with significant changes to the country’s workplace laws.

Join us for a complimentary 1 hour webinar where we’ll highlight the changes you need to know about and identify the trends that we expect to impact your workplace in 2018.

Topics will include:

  • A roundup of the big changes to Canada’s workplace legislation
  • #MeToo – How to effectively deal with sexual harassment in today’s workplace
  • The coming legalization of marijuana and its impact on the workplace
  • Transgender in the workplace: a practical guide

Register now

CPD/CLE Accreditation

LSBC: This session will be registered for 1 hour of CPD credit with the Law Society of British Columbia.
LSO: This program is eligible for up to 1 Substantive Hour with the Law Society of Ontario.
Barreau du Québec: This program will allow participants to earn 1 CLE hour with the Barreau du Québec.

 

Questions

Please contact Carla Vasquez at carla.vasquez@dentons.com or +1 416 361 2377.

Dentons Canada LLP is committed to accessibility for persons with disabilities. Please contact us at toronto.events@dentons.com in advance of the event if you have any particular accommodation requirements. We will work with you to make appropriate arrangements.

 

Webinar: Employment and Labour law trends to watch for in 2018

When is a Release effective to bar a safety-related complaint? Appeal court weighs in

A release, signed by a terminated employee, barred her complaint against her employer under occupational health and safety legislation, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal has decided.

The employee was a nurse at a long-term care home.  The employer dismissed her during the probationary period on the basis that she was “not suitable”.  After getting legal advice, she signed a release in exchange for one month’s termination pay.

Less than a month after signing the release, she filed a complaint with the Occupational Health and Safety division of the Saskatchewan Ministry of Labour, alleging that prior to her termination, she had raised safety issues with management regarding bullying and unsafe staffing levels.

The court stated that OHS legislation is for the general benefit of employees, and that benefit should not be bargained away by a release or other agreement.  However, once a “triggering events” occurs which provides a worker with the right to make a complaint under OHS legislation, that right becomes “personal” to the worker.  Where a worker has given a release in respect of a personal right, the validity of the release must be reviewed.  Also, for the release to be effective to bar the personal OHS complaint, the timing of signing of the release (before or after the personal OHS issue arose) must be examined.

In this case, the release was valid, and the personal OHS issue occurred before the release was signed.  Therefore the employee was barred from advancing the OHS complaint.  Her OHS complaint was dismissed.

Wieler v Saskatoon Convalescent Home, 2017 SKCA 90 (CanLII)

 

When is a Release effective to bar a safety-related complaint? Appeal court weighs in

The introduction of Bill 30 brings the potential for significant changes to Alberta’s workplace laws

On November 27, 2017, the Government of Alberta introduced numerous proposed changes to Alberta’s Occupational Health and Safety Act and Workers’ Compensation Act. The proposed changes are contained in Bill 30: An Act to Protect the Health and Well-being of Working Albertans.

A review of the key proposed changes in Bill 30 is found here. 

 

The introduction of Bill 30 brings the potential for significant changes to Alberta’s workplace laws

City inspector who engaged in two separate physical attacks at work was fired for cause: “that risk must be removed from the workplace”

A labour arbitrator has upheld the dismissal of a city inspector after he physically attacked two people – a coworker and a contractor to the city – in two separate incidents at work.

The employee was an inspector with the Municipal Construction unit at the city’s Water Division.

The arbitrator found that in one incident, the employee engaged in a physical altercation in which he intentionally struck a coworker, causing him injury (a 1-2 cm cut under his left eyebrow). The incident arose from a dispute about the use of city laundry facilities used to wash employees’ work clothes.  The arbitrator also found that the employee was dishonest in his characterization of what occurred, and did not accept responsibility.

In the other incident, the employee engaged in a verbal altercation with a city contractor (a backhoe operator) while inspecting a new residential service connection at a private property.  Instead of walking away, the employee escalated the dispute into a physical altercation, following the contractor and striking him twice in the back of the head.  The dispute was over whether the backhoe operator was using the appropriate material for backfill.

The arbitrator stated:

“There is simply no basis on which to relieve against the grievor’s termination.  His inability to control his anger has resulted in conduct which is completely unacceptable.   Even prior to Bill 168, an employee who, on two separate occasions physically attacked persons in the workplace, particularly when at least one of those attacks resulted in an injury, could expect to have their employment terminated, and that termination upheld.” 

Here, rather than taking responsibility for his actions, the employee attempted to blame the victims. He had failed to take an anger management course when requested, and also had received a Letter of Direction, directing him not to engage in workplace violence.

The arbitrator concluded:

“Accordingly, I accept the City’s assessment that the grievor has anger management issues, is likely to reoffend by engaging in violence, and that that risk must be removed from the workplace.”

There were no mitigating factors in the case. The employee’s dismissal was upheld.

Canadian Union Of Public Employees, Local 79 v Toronto (City), 2017 CanLII 53965 (ON LA)

City inspector who engaged in two separate physical attacks at work was fired for cause: “that risk must be removed from the workplace”

Town employees did not have a reasonable basis to fear violence from protester: “violence is not the mere absence of civility”, appeal court states

“The Town employees, both junior and senior, were alarmed, but they were alarmed too easily”, the Ontario Court of Appeal has stated, in deciding that a protester outside of a town council meeting did not engage in “violence”.  The decision shows that employees’ subjective fear of bullying or violence are not always legally justified.

The man was protesting the town council’s intention to permit a medical marijuana facility to be built across the street from his home. Several town staff members “expressed fear for their safety”. The town’s interim Chief Administrative Officer, whose duties included the obligation under the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act to maintain a workplace free from harassment or violence, issued a trespass notice and the police arrested the protester and placed him in handcuffs when he refused to leave.  The trespass notice stated that the protester was not to enter three town properties for a year.  The protester brought a court application challenging the validity of the trespass notice.  He lost at the lower court, but won at the Court of Appeal.

The appeal court decided that the protester had not engaged in violence.  Although town employees were frightened and felt that the protester was “bullying them”, the evidence did not disclose any reasonable basis for their fear.  The court stated, “A protest does not cease to be peaceful simply because protesters are loud and angry”.  Here, there was no evidence that the protester physically obstructed anyone, or otherwise impaired anyone’s ability to use public space.  He paced back and forth with a megaphone.  Those were not “erratic” actions. The court stated, “Violence is not the mere absence of civility.”

The court noted the insufficient basis for the town employees’ fear of violence:

“The basis for [the town employees’] fear appears to be (1) one prior interaction in which Mr. Bracken was loud and “intimidating”, but in which he was never violent or threatening; (2) Mr. Bracken’s videotaping of a Council meeting; (3) Mr. Bracken’s videos posted to Youtube, in which he is said to chase people down and question them; (4) his actions on the day of his protest. If anyone felt intimidated by him, other than Town employees who had never before witnessed a protest and doubted that protests in front of Town Hall were lawful, it was not because he was threatening anyone.”

The court held that the town’s Workplace Violence Prevention Policy did not give the town authority to issue the trespass notice to the protester.  The court stated, “Although the OHSA imposes a duty on the Town to take reasonable precautions to protect workers, it does not confer any powers on the Town regarding the activities of someone who is not a co-worker . . .”  Further, the town staff could have talked to the protester and cautioned him about his activities, but they did not do so.  The trespass notice violated the protester’s right, under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to freedom of expression.

According to the appeal court, “The statutory obligation to promote workplace safety, and the ‘safe space’ policies enacted pursuant to them, cannot be used to swallow whole Charter rights.”

In the end, the appeal court set aside the trespass notice and awarded the protester $4,000.00 for his costs of the appeal, and additional costs for the lower court proceeding.

Bracken v. Fort Erie (Town), 2017 ONCA 668 (CanLII)

Town employees did not have a reasonable basis to fear violence from protester: “violence is not the mere absence of civility”, appeal court states

Ontario employers are not, as a general rule, answerable under the OHSA to employees for workplace harassment by fellow employees or managers: arbitrator

An arbitrator has stated that the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act does not make employers “answerable to their employees for harassment to which they have been subjected by fellow employees or managers”.

The case involved a unionized Systems Analyst who claimed that she had been “harassed and bullied” by her former manager.  The employee alleged that the manager’s conduct included spreading rumours about the employee, denying her permission to attend professional conferences, unfairly evaluating her performance, looking to find fault in her work, and failing to include her in pertinent email correspondence.  The employee admitted that she had not brought all of the incidents to management’s attention.

The arbitrator stated that the main purpose of the harassment provisions in the collective agreement between the employer and  the union was to “express the parties’ shared commitment to eliminating workplace harassment, and to provide for the investigation of complaints by employees who claim to have suffered harassment or bullying at the workplace”.  The collective agreement did not, however, include a provision that made the employer liable for workplace harassment.

Turning to the OHSA’s workplace harassment provisions, the arbitrator stated:

“Of particular inter­est to this grievance is that the OHSA requires employers to develop policies on workplace harassment, the central plank of which is the investi­gation of harassment complaints. The OHSA provides for the possibility of fines for employers who fail to comply with their obligations under the legislation. It also provides for complaints to the Ontario Labour Relations Board or for the arbitration of grievances where it is alleged that an employer has penalized an employee as a reprisal for seeking to enforce his or her rights under the OHSA. Absent from the OHSA, however, is any suggestion that employers are answerable to their employ­ees for harassment to which they have been subjected by fellow employees or by managers. In short, the OHSA does nothing to bolster the union’s claim in the present case.” [underlining added]

This decision suggests that the harassment provisions in the Ontario OHSA do not actually impose a duty on employers to ensure that employees are free from workplace harassment (rather, the OHSA requires employers to develop and post a harassment policy, provide employees with “information and instruction” on that policy, and ensure that complaints of harassment are appropriately investigated).

George Brown College of Applied Arts and Technology v Ontario Public Service Employees Union, 2017 CanLII 40984 (ON LA)

Ontario employers are not, as a general rule, answerable under the OHSA to employees for workplace harassment by fellow employees or managers: arbitrator

Student’s violent outbursts justified teacher’s work refusal: OLRB

A student’s history of violent outbursts justified a teacher’s work refusal, the Ontario Labour Relations Board has decided.

The teacher actually engaged in two work refusals: one when the student became violent (which was resolved by removing the student from the teacher’s class), and the second the next day when the teacher realized that the student was back in her class and that the removal had been only for the remainder of the previous day.

The student was in senior kindergarten. He had engaged in violent behavior at the school in the previous school year, including poking another student in the eye with a stick. In senior kindergarten, the student had more violent outbursts including throwing a stool at the teacher; punching another student; trying to bite and scratch the teacher; and kicking the teacher and scratching her face and eye, for which she was required to go to the hospital. The teacher said that it was impossible to predict when the student’s outbursts would occur.

On the day of the teacher’s first work refusal, the student began to push another student. Anticipating an incident, the teacher had the other students removed from the classroom. The student was left with the Educational Assistant, whom the student began to kick and hit. The student also threw toys at the door. The EA was able to calm the student down. While the student was in the classroom with the EA, the teacher went to the principal’s office and said that she (the teacher) was exercising her right to refuse unsafe work. The principal, after consulting with the teacher, removed the student from the class and spent the rest of the day in the principal’s office.

The next day, the teacher came to school and found the student back in her class. She again refused to work, saying she was concerned that the student would have another violent outburst. A Ministry of Labour inspector attended and determined that there was no reason for the teacher to refuse work under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. The teacher’s union appealed that decision to the OLRB.

The OLRB decided that the teacher’s first work refusal was not justified under the OHSA because at the time, the student’s health and safety was in imminent jeopardy in that the student was a danger to himself if left alone.   Regulation 857 prohibited teachers from refusing to work where the circumstances were such that the life, health or safety of a student was in imminent jeopardy. However, the second work refusal was justified as the teacher had a genuine and honest concern about her safety as a result of the student’s violent behavior. Given the student’s history, that concern was reasonable. The school had put the teacher in a difficult position: not only was the student returned to class, but no one in administration spoke with the teacher in advance. No new measures had been considered in order to deal with the student’s outbursts.

Toronto Elementary Catholic Teachers / Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association v. Toronto Catholic District School Board, 2017 CanLII 37597 (ON LRB)

 

Student’s violent outbursts justified teacher’s work refusal: OLRB

WSIB benefits to be available in Ontario for “chronic or traumatic mental stress” starting in 2018

Ontario has amended the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act to make WSIB benefits available for “chronic or traumatic mental stress” arising from the workplace, starting January 1, 2018. There will be no retroactive application.

The amendments provide, however, that:

“A worker is not entitled to benefits for mental stress caused by decisions or actions of the worker’s employer relating to the worker’s employment, including a decision to change the work to be performed or the working conditions, to discipline the worker or to terminate the employment.”

As with any type of workplace injury, in order to obtain WSIB benefits for mental stress, the worker must show that the mental stress “arises out of and in the course of” the worker’s employment.  To obtain WSIB benefits for mental stress, the worker must also prove that the mental stress was “chronic” or “traumatic”.

The WSIB has released a draft policy on chronic mental stress and invites comments before July 7, 2017.

Of course, workers employed by employers that are not registered with the WSIB (and not required to be registered) will not be entitled to WSIB benefits for workplace mental stress.

One expects that this change will result in a significant number of claims to the WSIB, since “job stress” is a commonly-raised issue.  Some of those claims might otherwise have manifested themselves as workplace harassment complaints (under the employer’s workplace harassment policy), a harassment application to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, a union grievance, or a claim to the employer’s group benefits insurer under a group long-term disability insurance plan.

A Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decision in 2014 had determined that the current workplace mental stress provisions of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in that they discriminated against workers with mental disabilities.  The amendments appear to be, at least in part, a response to that decision.

The section of the Bill that relates to amendments to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act may be read here.

 

 

WSIB benefits to be available in Ontario for “chronic or traumatic mental stress” starting in 2018

Court orders condo owner who harassed building management staff to cease and desist. OHSA harassment provisions applied

A condominium owner who called building management staff offensive and degrading names has been ordered by a judge to cease and desist from harassing them. The decision shows that the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act’s harassment provisions can require an employer to take steps to end harassment by third-parties.

The condo owner frequently and persistently emailed staff.  She also called them degrading names such as “obscenely obese”, “massive hulk” and “tubbo”. She suggested that she was deeply concerned about the management of the building.

The condominium corporation sought a cease-and-desist order from the court. The judge noted that the owner’s “verbal barrage has made work life intolerable” for the staff. The judge described her communications as “antisocial, degrading and harassing”.  Her conduct was workplace harassment under the OHSA. It was clearly unwelcome, and the employer had a legal duty under the OHSA to investigate it.

The judge ordered the condo owner to “cease and desist from uncivil or illegal conduct that violates the Condominium Act or the Rules” of the condo corporation. The judge also ordered her to pay the condo corporation $15,000 for its legal costs in the court proceeding.

York Condominium Corp No 163 v Robinson, 2017 ONSC 2419 (CanLII)

Court orders condo owner who harassed building management staff to cease and desist. OHSA harassment provisions applied

Bullied to death? PEI WCB awards benefits to widow after finding a link between workplace bullying and fatal heart attack

The Workers Compensation Board of Prince Edward Island recently awarded WCB benefits to the widow of a worker who died of a heart attack in November 2013. The worker had suffered a workplace back injury a few months earlier and had recently returned to work. According to the widow’s submissions to the WCB, the worker was bullied at work by his supervisor and did not feel he was receiving the proper support from his employer.

The worker’s family had initially approached the WCB about the availability of benefits, but were advised that because the death was not caused by a workplace injury, benefits were not available to them. The worker’s estate, widow and children subsequently commenced a court action against the employer and supervisor claiming damages. The claim alleged that the worker died from heart failure as a result of workplace bullying, and that the work conditions led to stress, anxiety and physical symptoms which ultimately caused his fatal heart attack.

The Supreme Court of PEI initially dismissed the action on the basis that it did not have jurisdiction as there was a collective agreement in place that governed, and so there were other remedies available to the plaintiffs including grievance arbitration and a WCB claim. On appeal, the PEI Court of Appeal reversed the decision, finding that the PEI Fatal Accidents Act did give the Court jurisdiction over the claim brought by the dependents. The Court of Appeal also considered whether a stay was appropriate on the basis that the claim was within the jurisdiction of the Workers Compensation Act. However, the Court was unable to decide that issue on the limited record, reminding the parties that the WCB can adjudicate and determine whether a right of action is removed by the Workers Compensation Act.

The plaintiffs returned to the WCB seeking a determination. The WCB confirmed that a workplace accident could include bullying and harassment. After receiving submissions from the parties, the WCB determined that the worker’s death was linked to workplace bullying and harassment, thus entitling the widow to benefits. The employer has filed an appeal with the WCB so this is likely not the last word.

While WCB policies may vary across the country, the basic premise behind WCB benefits is the same – the historic trade off whereby employers fund a no-fault insurance scheme to compensate injured workers for workplace injuries and in return, workers give up the right to sue the employer. In order for a claim to be compensable, there must have been a workplace accident.

In Alberta, the WCB’s cardiac policy states that in order for cardiac claims to be compensable:

  • there must be evidence of occupational exposure to factors or events known or presumed to be associated with heart problems; and
  • the time period between the occupational exposure and the onset of the cardiac condition is such that a relationship can be established.

The policy also list some examples of occupational exposures which can cause cardiac conditions, including psychological causes, involving exposure to significant and acute psychological stress.

Therefore, while the PEI decision appears to be a unique case, with the proper facts and medical evidence, and the relatively recent focus on issues of workplace bullying, we can expect to see more claims for benefits relating to workplace bullying and harassment. In the meantime, employers should ensure that they have (and follow!) appropriate policies and procedures in place to address workplace bullying and harassment.

The Court of Appeal decision can be found here.

 

Bullied to death? PEI WCB awards benefits to widow after finding a link between workplace bullying and fatal heart attack

“Your ugly face”: employer’s condescending, aggressive, hostile and profane behaviour in one meeting resulted in constructive dismissal. Nurse awarded 24 months in damages

The Ontario Court of Appeal has upheld a 24-month damage award to a long-service nurse in a doctor’s office who believed that she had been fired during a hostile meeting with her employer.

The doctor for whom she worked wanted her to look into electronic medical records (EMR).  She was overwhelmed with a heavy workload and did not get to it.  The doctor angrily confronted her in a meeting, at which the doctor’s wife was also present.  The court found that the doctor, in his anger, said, “Go! Get out! I am so sick of coming into this office every day and looking at your ugly face.”  He also pointed at her, shouted at her, accused her of being resistant to change, and used profanity during that meeting.  The employee, distraught, left the meeting and never returned to work. The employer treated her as having quit. The employee sued for wrongful dismissal.

The trial judge decided that although the doctor did not intend to dismiss the nurse, he did in fact fire her when he told her to “Go! Get out!”

Even if the doctor had not fired the employee, he had constructively dismissed her, the trial judge stated.  Although the meeting was only one incident, it was sufficient to constitute a constructive dismissal.  The trial judge wrote:

“An employer owes a duty to its employees to treat them fairly, with civility, decency, respect and dignity.  An employer who subjects employees to treatment that renders competent performance of their work impossible, or continued employment intolerable, exposes itself to an action for constructive dismissal.  Where the employer’s treatment of the employee is of sufficient severity and effect, it will be characterized as an unjustified repudiation of the employment contract.”

The trial judge found that the doctor’s behaviour was condescending, aggressive, hostile and profane.  His conduct diminished the nurse’s stature and dignity in the office.  When the doctor saw the emotional impact that his comments had on her at the meeting, he did nothing.  He had made her continued employment intolerable, and effectively destroyed the employment relationship.

The trial judge awarded this 22-year employee 24 months’ salary in damages for wrongful dismissal.  The appeal court upheld this award.

The trial judge’s decision can be read here, and the appeal court’s decision here.

 

“Your ugly face”: employer’s condescending, aggressive, hostile and profane behaviour in one meeting resulted in constructive dismissal. Nurse awarded 24 months in damages

Threats of violence, one day after “sensitivity training”, get worker fired for cause. He “may have a problem with women in the workplace, especially women managers”, says arbitrator

A worker who said, “If anything ever happened, like losing my job, I’d have no problem coming in here and shooting them”, a day after receiving sensitivity training relating to workplace violence, was dismissed for cause, an arbitrator has decided. The worker, a fare collector, had taken the training after giving the finger to an “obstreperous customer”.

He made the “shooting them” threat while speaking with a coworker about the materials from the training session, to which he remarked, ” Can you believe this?”  After the coworker tried to make light of the situation, the worker said that he would kill only managers, not union employees.

The coworker reported the threat to management, who then fired the worker, who filed a union grievance.

The arbitrator found that the worker had made the threat, despite the worker’s denial.
The coworker had no motive to make false allegations. The two employees had had a friendly relationship.

Despite the worker’s 25 years of service, the arbitrator decided that the employer had just cause for dismissal. The worker never admitted the threats nor apologized. He had a disciplinary history including discipline for an incident in which he was unable to control his anger. Significantly, he made the threats one day after taking sensitivity training designed to help him control his anger and understand the seriousness of workplace violence. He also had an unfounded view that female employees were conspiring to get him, showing that he “may have a problem with women in the workplace”.  All of these factors “did not bode well for the future” were he to be reinstated.

Toronto Transit Commission v Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 113, 2017 CanLII 11071 (ON LA)

Threats of violence, one day after “sensitivity training”, get worker fired for cause. He “may have a problem with women in the workplace, especially women managers”, says arbitrator

“Repeated exposure to supervisor constituted a dangerous situation”, employee arguing

The Federal Court has breathed new life into a government employee’s claim that “repeated exposure to her supervisor constituted a dangerous situation” that justified her work refusal under the Canada Labour Code.  The case is a good example of how workplace harassment / violence complaints that appear trivial on their face can turn out to cause the employer significant headaches.

The employee was unhappy with the employer’s investigation.  The matter was then referred to a federal Labour Affairs Officer who concluded that the existing situation constituted a danger for the employee.  He recommended that the Labour Program’s Regional Director order the employer to take immediate action to correct the situation.

However, the Regional Director “refused to investigate” the work refusal, reasoning that the employee’s concerns would be more appropriately dealt with under the Public Service Labour Relations Act because of the grievances that the employee had already filed under that Act.  The Regional Director told the employee that she was no longer entitled to refuse to be in the direct or indirect presence of her supervisor.

The court decided that the Regional Director’s decision was unreasonable.  Given that the Labour Affairs Officer had already investigated the work refusal, the Regional Director had only three options under sections 129(4) and 128(13) of the Canada Labour Code: “1) agree that a danger exists; 2) agree that a danger exists but consider that the refusal puts the life, health or safety of another person directly in danger or that the danger is a normal condition of employment; and 3) determine that a danger does not exist.”  The court also stated that even if the Labour Affairs Officer had not already investigated the work refusal, the Regional Director’s decision “was not justified, transparent or intelligible as it lacked any explanation as to why” the grievance under the Public Service Labour Relations Act was a more appropriate process to deal with the employee’s allegations of danger.  It was also unclear as to why the Regional Director diverged from the Labour Affairs Officer’s decision.

As such, the court concluded that “the Regional Director’s decision lacks justification, transparency and intelligibility and as such, it is unreasonable and does not fall within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and law”.

The court set aside the decision of the Regional Director and sent the matter back to the Minister of Labour or her delegate for reconsideration.  The court awarded the employee $4,500.00 in legal costs.

Karn v. Canada (Attorney General), 2017 FC 123 (CanLII)

“Repeated exposure to supervisor constituted a dangerous situation”, employee arguing

Industrial safety specialist properly fired for lying on security application

An Ontario judge has decided that Atomic Energy of Canada Limited had just cause to dismiss an industrial safety specialist who misrepresented his employment history in a security application.

AECL operates nuclear research facilities.  It runs security checks that are mandated by the Government of Canada, including obtaining site security clearances for new employees.

AECL received harassment complaints against the employee.  During the investigation, it came out that the employee had been employed at the time AECL hired him. However, during the hiring process, he had indicated on a security questionnaire, and in an e-mail when specifically asked, that he was unemployed.  This was false. AECL fired him.

The employee sued for wrongful dismissal.  In the course of the lawsuit, he offered five different explanations for why he lied to AECL about his employment status.

The court decided that AECL had just cause to dismiss the employee.  AECL was not a “regular employer”, and the pre-employment security checks were “tied to the security of the nation”.  The court stated, “It is in this national security context that the plaintiff misled his employer”.  He had “engaged in a most serious form of dishonesty and, standing on its own, it was irreconcilable with sustaining his employment relationship with AECL.  It is dishonesty that went to the core of the employment relationship and he was terminated with cause.”

Aboagye v Atomic Energy, 2016 ONSC 8165 (CanLII)

 

Industrial safety specialist properly fired for lying on security application

Court refuses small-town mayor’s OHSA-based request for injunction prohibiting resident from harassing her

An Ontario judge has rebuffed a small-town mayor’s attempt to use the Occupational Health and Safety Act‘s violence and harassment provisions to obtain a court order stopping a town resident from harassing her.

The mayor claimed that the resident had engaged in workplace harassment and violence, contrary to the OHSA, by sending her numerous “increasingly abrasive” letters and emails in which he made pejorative statements about the mayor and made comments about the “unprofessional conduct” of the town. The resident was apparently “interested in horticulture and town beautification” and had concerns about the management of the town’s affairs.

The court decided that the evidence did not support a finding that workplace violence had occurred.  There was just one allegation that the resident had verbally harassed the mayor during an encounter at the town health unit, where the mayor held a full-time job, in 2014.  Also, the judge stated that it was doubtful that the harassment policy or the OHSA’s harassment provisions were ever intended to apply to persons who are not part of the “workplace”.  The judge decided that in this case, the resident was not a coworker, so the harassment policy did not apply to his actions.

The mayor and the town were therefore not entitled to an “injunction” order from the court prohibiting the resident from communicating with, harassing or publishing any information about the mayor or any other town councillor or employee.

Rainy River v Olsen, 2016 ONSC 8009 (CanLII)

Court refuses small-town mayor’s OHSA-based request for injunction prohibiting resident from harassing her