A worker’s attempt to challenge his layoff on the grounds of safety concerns came to a definitive end as the Alberta Labour Relations Board dismissed the appeal, citing abandonment in a contentious case that included him calling the board “asshats” who could “kiss his ass.”
R.B., who had claimed his dismissal from Lotus Bobcat Services Ltd. was a result of reporting unsafe working conditions, failed to pursue the case through to completion, leading to its dismissal under the Board’s procedural rules.
The ruling capped a lengthy process that began in 2019, when R.B. first reported his concerns. According to the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Officer’s report dated Dec. 18, 2019, he had informed his employer that the truck he was operating was unsafe and refused to drive it until repairs were made.
Despite his protected activity in reporting safety issues, the OHS officer initially dismissed R.B.’s discriminatory action complaint, determining that the employer’s decision to lay him off was based on reasons unrelated to the safety concerns.
R.B. appealed the decision under section 71(2)(d) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, prompting a protracted legal process exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. The case encountered multiple delays as both parties navigated the challenges of remote hearings and scheduling conflicts, which further complicated proceedings.
In a preliminary decision issued on June 12, 2020, the Board acknowledged the potential need for new evidence and directed that the appeal proceed to a hearing. However, the evolving pandemic situation led to a series of adjournments and a debate over whether the hearing should be conducted in person, via video conference, or through written submissions.
R.B., representing himself, struggled with the legal process, as evidenced by the Board’s repeated efforts to accommodate his requests. At one point, he insisted that the hearing be postponed until the pandemic was over, stating he had “had enough” and wanted to delay the case until he could obtain legal counsel.
Tensions escalated in September 2021 when R.B. expressed his frustration with the proceedings in a series of inflammatory emails to the Board, including one where he wrote, “You asshats can kiss my ass,” and threatened to pursue a civil lawsuit instead of continuing with the appeal. The Board attempted to clarify his intentions and offered a formal process for withdrawing the appeal, but R.B. did not follow through.
After nearly three years of sporadic communication and continued delays, the Board took action in May 2024. The Chair reassigned the appeal to a new adjudicator and requested that R.B. confirm his desire to proceed with the case. The letter clearly warned that failure to respond by June 10, 2024, would result in the dismissal of the appeal under Rule 24 of the Transitional Rules of Procedure for OHS Appeals, which allows the Board to deem an appeal abandoned if the appellant fails to maintain communication or adequately pursue the case.
R.B. did not respond to the Board’s directive, nor did he provide any further submissions. Consequently, on July 31, 2024, the Board concluded that the appeal had been effectively abandoned, and the case was formally dismissed. The Board’s ruling states, “In light of the Appellant’s communications with the Board in September 2021 and his failure to communicate with the Board since that time, including his failure to respond to the Board’s letter of May 27, 2024, the Board deems the appeal to be abandoned.”
For more information, see Bryldt v Lotus Bobcat Services Ltd., 2024 ABOHSAB 14 (CanLII).
