The Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal (WCAT) of British Columbia has dismissed a worker’s appeal alleging prohibited action by his employer, upholding an earlier decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board (WorkSafeBC).
The worker, a construction site supervisor, had claimed that management created a toxic work environment, coerced him into resigning, and engaged in prohibited actions under the Workers Compensation Act (the Act).
Background and complaint
The case originated when the worker submitted a prohibited action complaint to WorkSafeBC, alleging coercion, intimidation, and a toxic work environment stemming from interactions with a particular member of management, referred to in the ruling as “Mr. X.” The worker, who started with the employer in May 2020, cited various incidents of verbal abuse and inappropriate conduct by Mr. X, culminating in his decision to resign in June 2022.
In his complaint, the worker sought compensation for the turmoil he experienced during his employment. He argued that the employer’s behaviour constituted prohibited action under the Act, which protects workers from retaliatory actions when they raise workplace safety concerns.
Initial Board decision
On Oct. 31, 2023, a WorkSafeBC legal adjudicative officer reviewed the case and determined that a prima facie case of prohibited action had not been established. Additionally, the officer concluded that even if a basic case had been proven, the employer would have successfully rebutted it.
The worker subsequently appealed this decision to WCAT.
Tribunal’s analysis and ruling
In his appeal to WCAT, the worker did not submit additional evidence or arguments in support of his claim. The tribunal allowed the appeal to proceed in writing, with both the worker and the employer providing submissions. The worker, however, failed to respond to deadlines for submitting replies to the employer’s arguments or explaining why an oral hearing was necessary.
The tribunal vice chair cited procedural fairness principles, noting that the worker had been given multiple opportunities to participate and that there was no legal requirement to hold an oral hearing.
WCAT’s review of the evidence centred on whether the employer had taken prohibited action against the worker as defined in Section 47 of the Act. According to the tribunal, four key elements must be met to establish a prohibited action claim: a negative employment consequence must occur, the worker must have engaged in protected safety activities, a causal connection must exist between the two, and the employer must be unable to rebut the presumption of prohibited action.
Worker failed to establish negative employment consequence
The tribunal found that the worker failed to demonstrate that he had suffered a negative employment consequence as a result of raising safety concerns. The worker’s evidence focused largely on Mr. X’s management style, including incidents of yelling and unrealistic project timelines. However, the tribunal determined that these actions, while unpleasant, did not meet the criteria for coercion or intimidation under the Act.
“In the prohibited action context, coercion and intimidation have a narrow definition,” the tribunal wrote in the decision, referencing prior WCAT rulings. It emphasized that not all negative interactions between a worker and a manager qualify as prohibited action, stating, “Bullying or harassing a worker (assuming that Mr. X’s conduct rose to that level) is not a prohibited action.”
Constructive dismissal claim rejected
The tribunal also considered whether the worker’s resignation amounted to constructive dismissal, which could qualify as a negative employment consequence. The worker had submitted two resignation emails — one on May 25, 2022, and another on June 9, 2022 — citing issues with management and Mr. X’s behaviour. However, the tribunal noted that while a toxic work environment could lead to constructive dismissal, the worker’s evidence did not support that his resignation was triggered by retaliatory actions for raising safety concerns.
“In short, I did not understand the worker’s evidence to be that Mr. X’s behaviour occurred in response to the worker raising a safety issue,” the tribunal stated.
No causal connection established
The ruling also highlighted the lack of a clear causal connection between the worker’s resignation and any safety complaints he had raised. While the worker had referenced issues such as COVID-19 vaccinations and workplace harassment, the tribunal found no evidence to suggest that these concerns were linked to his decision to quit.
“There were other intervening events that the worker emphasized led to his decision to resign,” the tribunal wrote, concluding that the worker’s resignation was not connected to any safety-related retaliation by the employer.
Employer’s presumption successfully rebutted
Finally, the tribunal concluded that even if the worker had established a prima facie case of prohibited action, the employer would have successfully rebutted it. The employer had provided evidence, including emails and witness statements, indicating that the worker’s resignation was due to performance issues and interpersonal conflict, not retaliatory actions for raising safety concerns.
“In my view, such a complaint does not amount to impermissible anti-safety animus under the Act,” the tribunal stated.
Conclusion
WCAT dismissed the worker’s appeal and upheld WorkSafeBC’s decision, confirming that the employer did not engage in prohibited action. The worker’s allegations, while significant, did not meet the strict criteria outlined in the Act for establishing a case of prohibited action related to workplace safety concerns.
The tribunal also made no orders for reimbursement of appeal expenses, as there were no requests for such expenses during the proceedings.
For more information, see A2302268 (Re), 2024 CanLII 84800 (BC WCAT).
