Home Featured Worker’s termination for falling asleep while monitoring safety not egregious; WCB benefits upheld

Worker’s termination for falling asleep while monitoring safety not egregious; WCB benefits upheld

by HR Law Canada

The Appeals Commission for Alberta Workers’ Compensation has ruled that a worker’s termination for falling asleep on the job did not meet the threshold for “egregious conduct” under Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) policy, affirming the worker’s entitlement to temporary total disability (TTD) wage replacement benefits.

The case stemmed from an incident on Aug. 23, 2023, when the worker, who had been on modified duties due to a compensable shoulder injury, was found sleeping while serving as a confined space monitor for a co-worker performing welding inside a pipe. The employer suspended the worker and later terminated his employment on Sept. 8, 2023, citing breaches of workplace safety policies.

Two weeks after the termination, the WCB informed the worker that he would receive wage replacement benefits. The employer challenged the decision, arguing that the worker’s conduct — falling asleep during a critical safety role — was “flagrantly bad” and warranted disqualification from benefits. The WCB’s Dispute Resolution and Decision Review Body (DRDRB) reviewed the case and upheld the original decision, prompting the employer to appeal to the Appeals Commission.

Legal framework and key questions

The central issue before the Appeals Commission was whether the worker’s conduct met the definition of “egregious conduct” under WCB Policy 04-02. According to WCB guidelines, egregious conduct must be “shockingly bad to a reasonable person” and is assessed based on factors such as intentionality, impairment, adherence to workplace policies, and potential consequences.

The panel evaluated two primary questions:

First, did the worker’s compensable injury result in temporary work restrictions that prevented him from resuming suitable employment?

Second, if not, did his termination result from “egregious conduct” that would preclude him from receiving benefits?

    Findings and analysis

    The panel found that medical evidence did not support a conclusion that the worker’s injury prevented him from performing suitable modified work. However, the panel determined that the worker’s termination was not the result of egregious conduct.

    Several factors influenced this conclusion:

    No evidence of impairment: The employer did not allege, nor did the evidence suggest, that the worker was impaired at the time of the incident.

    Lack of intent: The panel found no indication that the worker deliberately or intentionally fell asleep. “There is no evidence before us which supports that the worker intentionally lied down to have a nap,” the ruling stated.

    Policy violation acknowledged: The employer asserted that the worker had breached company policies concerning confined space safety and fitness for duty, which were well-established and consistently enforced. The panel acknowledged the policy breaches.

    Potential for harm: The ruling recognized the serious potential consequences of the worker’s inattention, stating that “the worker’s actions could have potentially endangered the life of his colleague who was welding inside a pipe.” The risk of asphyxiation from welding fumes was noted.

    Mitigating factors: The worker’s representative argued that chronic pain from the shoulder injury had affected his ability to sleep at night, contributing to his fatigue.

    Despite the serious nature of the lapse, the panel emphasized that egregious conduct requires an element of intentionality. “While we acknowledge that the worker breached employer policies regarding lifesaving rules and being fit for duty, and his falling asleep could potentially have had catastrophic consequences for his coworker, we find that there must be an element of intentionality for conduct to be egregious,” the decision stated.

    Conclusion

    The Appeals Commission ultimately found that the worker’s actions did not rise to the level of egregious conduct under WCB policy. As a result, the appeal was denied, and the June 24, 2024, decision of the DRDRB was upheld, ensuring the worker’s continued entitlement to TTD wage replacement benefits

    For more information, see Decision No.: 2025-0014, 2025 CanLII 5820 (AB WCAC).

    You may also like