In a ruling that underscores the strict interpretation of filing deadlines, the Nova Scotia Labour Board has dismissed a workplace complaint from an employee of Land & Sea Instrumentation Ltd., on the grounds that it was not filed within the mandated 30-day timeframe.
The allegations of a “toxic work environment” and discriminatory actions, which R.L. claimed were part of a retaliatory pattern following a report of noxious vapours at his workplace, were deemed untimely, leaving his grievances unexamined on their merits.
The dispute arose in October 2022 when R.L., along with three coworkers, reported noxious vapours at their workplace to the Safety Manager and subsequently to the Nova Scotia Department of Labour, Skills and Immigration (DOL). An inspection by Safety Officer Alicia Doiron followed, concluding that while hazards existed, proper control measures were in place and no further action was required.
Following this report, tensions between R.L. and his employer, Land & Sea Instrumentation Ltd., escalated. R.L. claimed that the environment at work became increasingly hostile, culminating in a series of actions he viewed as retaliatory. These included the alleged denial of a performance review, the removal of his assistant, a delayed expense voucher payment, the withholding of a pay raise, and being relocated to what he described as a “broom closet” office.
R.L. formally filed a discriminatory action complaint under Section 46 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act on Dec. 6, 2023. However, the complaint was dismissed on Dec. 28, 2023, because it was not filed within the required 30-day period from the alleged discriminatory actions.
In his appeal to the Labour Board, R.L. argued that an email sent to him by a representative from Land & Sea on Nov. 8, 2023, should be considered part of an ongoing pattern of discriminatory behaviour and thus within the required timeframe. The email in question, where the rep expressed concern over the tone of R.L.’s communications with colleagues and reiterated the need for respectful dialogue, was cited by R.L. as evidence of continued hostility and retaliation.
However, the Labour Board, chaired by Jasmine Walsh, was not persuaded by these arguments. In its decision, the Board stated, “The Board does not conclude that this is a discriminatory action in the meaning of Section 45 of the OHS Act.” The Board further clarified that the rep’s email, which called for respectful communication but did not impose any adverse consequences on R.L., did not meet the statutory definition of discriminatory action, which requires an adverse effect on terms and conditions of employment.
R.L. also contended that earlier emails he had sent in January 2023, where he described his workplace as “a continued toxic work environment,” should be recognized as the initial complaint, thereby resetting the 30-day clock. He argued that his communication with the DOL on Nov.16, 2023, where he expressed an intention to file a complaint, should similarly be considered as the start of the complaint process.
The Labour Board rejected these arguments, emphasizing that the statutory time limit is mandatory and that no provision exists within the Occupational Health and Safety Act to extend this period. The Board referred to previous decisions, such as Centa v. R.J. MacIsaac Construction Ltd. (2013 NSLB 126), to reinforce that even in cases where decision-makers may be sympathetic to an appellant’s situation, the 30-day notice period cannot be waived.
The Board concluded, “Without a timely discriminatory action, there cannot be a discriminatory action complaint.” Consequently, R.L.’s appeal was dismissed, effectively ending his attempt to seek redress for what he described as a year-long pattern of retaliatory behaviour by his employer.
For more information, see LeBlanc v Land & Sea Instrumentation Ltd., 2024 NSLB 88 (CanLII).
