The Manitoba Labour Board has dismissed an employee’s claim that he was terminated for raising workplace safety concerns, ruling that his dismissal was due to disrespectful and insubordinate behaviour rather than an anti-safety animus on the part of the employer.
In a decision involving Reliable Tire Recycling, the board upheld a Workplace Safety and Health Branch finding that no reprisal had occurred when C.A. was terminated shortly after raising several safety issues during a contentious meeting with management.
Brief employment marked by conflicts
C.A. was employed as a general labourer on the night shift for just over two weeks, from November 22 to December 8, 2023, when he was terminated while still on probation.
The case centred on a December 7 meeting where C.A. raised concerns about glue contaminating his clothing, dust in the workplace, forklift brakes, and other issues. He was terminated the following day.
Protection from safety-related reprisals
Under section 42 of Manitoba’s Workplace Safety and Health Act, employers are prohibited from taking reprisals against workers for exercising rights under the Act, including raising safety concerns or refusing dangerous work.
When workers establish that a reprisal occurred after they conducted themselves in a manner protected by the Act, the onus shifts to the employer to prove “that the decision to take the reprisal was not influenced by the conduct.”
Worker established prima facie case
The board found C.A. had established a prima facie case by showing he had invoked rights under the Act, suffered a negative employment consequence (termination), and demonstrated a timely nexus between the two events.
This shifted the burden to the employer to demonstrate the termination had nothing to do with the safety concerns raised.
Employer successfully rebutted presumption
The board ruled the employer successfully demonstrated the termination was unrelated to any anti-safety animus, finding instead that C.A. was fired solely due to his conduct during and after the December 7 meeting.
“The Appellant’s tone and manner throughout the December 7 meeting was argumentative, insulting, interruptive, disrespectful and was by any objective interpretation, insubordinate and insolent,” the board wrote.
The employer had addressed C.A.’s safety concerns during the meeting by:
- Agreeing to provide an apron the next day to protect his clothing from glue
- Directing him not to work the moulding line until he had the apron
- Telling him air guns would not be used during that shift
- Allowing him to work on the crumb line where a full-face mask respirator was provided
Despite these accommodations, C.A. spent the remainder of his shift in the lunchroom, telling a supervisor he was “making hours” rather than working.
Surreptitious recording admitted as evidence
A significant piece of evidence was a 47-minute audio recording C.A. had made during the meeting, which he submitted to support his case. The recording documented the December 7 meeting, including 8 minutes of lunchroom discussion before C.A. disclosed to his coworkers that he was recording.
Management wasn’t informed of the recording until approximately 22 minutes into their meeting with C.A.
The recording contradicted several of C.A.’s claims, including his assertion that management had directed him to sit in the lunchroom for the remainder of his shift, and that he had explicitly exercised his right to refuse unsafe work at the conclusion of the meeting.
Inconsistencies in worker’s testimony
The board noted several inconsistencies between C.A.’s testimony and the audio evidence:
“Contrary to the Appellant’s assertion that he continued to exercise his right to refuse work at the conclusion of the meeting, there was no such indication on the audio,” the board wrote.
“Also contrary to the Appellant’s evidence that he was directed to sit in the lunchroom for the balance of the shift, the audio proved no such conversation occurred even after he walked away from the meeting.”
The board also found C.A. raised issues about respirator fit testing for the first time during cross-examination at the hearing, not during the recorded meeting as he had claimed.
No role in assessing appropriate discipline
The board emphasized that its role was not to determine whether termination was the appropriate response, as “this is not a wrongful dismissal hearing.”
Instead, its mandate was solely to determine whether the termination was in whole or in part due to C.A. raising safety concerns, demonstrating an anti-safety animus.
“The Board concludes that the only reason the Appellant was terminated was due to his behaviour during the December 7 meeting followed by his insubordinate behaviour of sitting in the lunchroom for the rest of his shift,” the decision states.
Context of workplace safety requirements
The case provides insight into safety protocols at the tire recycling facility, where dust and “fluff” are inevitable byproducts of the manufacturing process that creates new products from used tires.
The company provided personal protective equipment specific to different workstations. The crumb line, where tires are broken down, required a half mask respirator as mandated by workplace safety regulations, along with hearing protection, eye protection, high visibility clothing, gloves, and steel-toed boots.
Night shift employees were also provided with full mask respirators for the crumb line, although these were not mandatory, to assist with deeper cleaning of dust and fluff that occurred during that shift.
For more information, see C.A. v Reliable Tire Recycling, 2024 CanLII 141692 (MB LB).
