The Alberta Occupational Health and Safety Appeal Body has denied an appeal from a West Fraser Mills worker who was suspended for one day without pay and received a disciplinary letter that he claimed was retaliation for acting in compliance with workplace safety rules.
The appeal panel upheld the original ruling, noting that it properly applied the standard of review in determining the employer had met its burden of proof.
The case involved S.G., an employee of West Fraser Mills Ltd., operating as Ranger Board. S.G. filed a complaint under section 19 of Alberta’s Occupational Health and Safety Act (the Act), alleging the discipline was imposed in retaliation for acting in compliance with occupational health and safety requirements.
OHS officer initially sided with worker
An officer with Alberta Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) investigated the complaint and determined that the employer failed to prove the discipline was unrelated to S.G.’s compliance with the Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Code (Code).
The employer appealed the decision, arguing that the disciplinary action was justified and unrelated to any protected activity.
Officer’s decision ruled unreasonable on appeal
On appeal, the appeal panel found that the OHS officer’s decision was unreasonable. It ruled that the officer had incorrectly framed the analysis by focusing on whether the employer could prove the incident that led to discipline occurred, rather than assessing whether the employer’s stated reasons for the discipline were the “actual and only” reasons and ensuring that compliance with the Act did not factor into the disciplinary action.
The panel remitted the matter back to the OHS officer for reconsideration in accordance with its findings.
Current appeal
S.G. then sought reconsideration of the appeal panel’s ruling, arguing that it wrongly discounted the necessity of proving the incident occurred and could allow employers to discipline workers based on manufactured evidence. The employer countered that the reconsideration request was an attempt to reargue the complaint and should be dismissed.
The appeal body, citing Astolfi v. Stone Creek Resorts Inc., affirmed that reconsideration is discretionary and requires substantial error, procedural unfairness, or new evidence to justify intervention. It ruled that the appeal panel had correctly applied the standard of review, as established in Ledcor Pipe & Infrastructure v. Alberta Occupational Health and Safety, and conducted a reasonable analysis of the issues.
It reiterated that section 18 of the Act provides a limited protection against discipline stemming from statutory compliance, rather than serving as a general appeal mechanism for any disciplinary action taken by an employer.
The appeal body ultimately declined to exercise its discretion to reconsider the decision, effectively upholding the employer’s position that the matter should be reassessed by the OHS officer based on the appropriate legal framework.
For more information, see Gugumus v West Fraser Mills Ltd., 2025 ABOHSAB 6 (CanLII).
