The Alberta Labour Relations Board has summarily dismissed the appeal of a worker who alleged his suspension and subsequent termination from Endurance Technologies violated the Occupational Health and Safety Act.
E.P., a machine operator at Endurance Technologies since November 2017, filed the appeal under section 45(2)(e) of the Act, challenging a report by an occupational health and safety officer that dismissed his disciplinary action complaint (DAC).
E.P. claimed his suspension and termination were retaliatory measures for reporting workplace safety concerns, including a near-miss incident and potential chemical exposure.
The board concluded that E.P.’s appeal had no reasonable prospect of success, citing that the disciplinary actions were related to his inappropriate conduct rather than his compliance with health and safety regulations.
What led to the worker’s termination?
The board’s decision reviewed key incidents leading to E.P.’s termination. On July 21, 2023, he had a heated discussion with the Director of Operations regarding quality control issues, during which he raised his voice and made physical contact with the Director.
Following this, on July 24, 2023, E.P. engaged in another argument with the Health and Safety Supervisor in the company parking lot, expressing frustration over unaddressed safety concerns.
Endurance Technologies cited these incidents as breaches of their Prevention of Workplace Violence and Harassment Plan and Code of Ethics. Despite E.P.’s assertion that these incidents were tied to his reporting of safety concerns, the board upheld the OHS Officer’s findings that the disciplinary actions were justified.
Actions not protected under act
The ruling emphasized that the DAC report had found E.P.’s initial reporting of safety issues to be in compliance with the Act, but the subsequent disciplinary measures were due to his conduct during the incidents on July 21 and July 24. The board noted that E.P.’s actions during these incidents were not protected under the Act, even if the discussions involved safety concerns.
In his appeal, E.P. sought to introduce new evidence, including video footage and materials related to an Employment Insurance decision. However, the board rejected this request, clarifying that appeals are based on the record before the OHS Officer, and new evidence is only permitted under exceptional circumstances.
The board also addressed procedural fairness concerns raised by E.P., affirming that these issues related to the employer’s investigation process rather than the OHS Officer’s investigation leading to the DAC report.
The board concluded that the OHS Officer’s reasoning was transparent and intelligible, and there was no basis to argue that the DAC report’s conclusions were unreasonable.
“There was ample evidence on the Record to support the finding that the Employer’s assessment of the Appellant’s behavior in course of those interactions was the actual basis for the discipline,” it said.
For more information, see Esperidion Parantar Jr. v Endurance Technologies Inc., 2024 ABOHSAB 9 (CanLII)
