A recent Alberta Occupational Health and Safety Appeal Body decision has dismissed an employee’s second appeal claiming his termination from Amazon Data Services Canada Inc. violated provincial safety legislation, finding the employer successfully demonstrated the dismissal was for reasons other than the worker raising safety concerns.
In Martin v Amazon Data Services Canada Inc., the tribunal summarily dismissed D.M.’s appeal of an Occupational Health and Safety Officer’s decision that rejected his disciplinary action complaint.
Background of the case
D.M. began working for Amazon Data Services Canada Inc. in 2018. In September 2022, he raised safety concerns about the weight-bearing capacity of floor tiles in the workplace. That same month, he allegedly sent two emails that the employer claimed breached its confidentiality policy and one email to a vendor that was allegedly disparaging to another vendor.
In October 2022, Amazon placed D.M. in its performance management program. Following an investigation into the alleged confidentiality breach and unprofessional communication, the company terminated his employment on November 7, 2022.
D.M. filed a disciplinary action complaint under section 45(2)(e) of Alberta’s Occupational Health and Safety Act, claiming his termination violated section 18 of the Act, which prohibits disciplinary action against workers for complying with the legislation.
Previous ruling
This marked D.M.’s second appeal on the matter. In an earlier decision (Martin #1), the Appeal Body found the initial Officer’s report was unreasonable because it stated Amazon had satisfied its burden by showing the “larger part” of its reasons for termination were not the result of raising safety concerns. The Appeal Body determined this was an incorrect application of the legal test, which requires consideration of whether compliance with the Act was “a reason” for termination, not merely whether it was the main reason.
The matter was remitted for reconsideration, and a new Officer was assigned to investigate.
The second investigation
The new Officer reviewed materials from the original investigation and issued a fresh report finding no contravention of the Act had occurred. The Officer determined Amazon had met its burden to establish that the disciplinary action was taken for reasons other than D.M. acting in compliance with the Act.
The Officer framed the analysis around three key questions:
- Was the complainant acting in compliance with the Act?
- Did the respondent take disciplinary action against the complainant?
- If yes to both, has the respondent established that disciplinary action was taken for a reason other than the complainant acting in compliance?
While the Officer found D.M. had indeed acted in compliance with the Act by raising concerns about the tile’s weight-bearing capacity and had received disciplinary action, the Officer concluded Amazon had satisfied its burden by demonstrating D.M. was terminated for breach of confidentiality.
Grounds for appeal
D.M. appealed the second decision on several grounds, arguing the Officer:
- Misapplied the legal test by focusing on whether compliance was the main reason for termination
- Was improperly reassigned as a new Officer rather than the one who prepared the first report
- Demonstrated bias in favour of the employer
- Failed to adequately consider all available evidence
- Conducted an insufficiently robust investigation
The tribunal’s analysis
The Appeal Body, applying a reasonableness standard of review, found D.M.’s appeal had “no reasonable prospect of success” and summarily dismissed it.
On the legal test issue, the tribunal found the Officer had correctly determined that acting in compliance with the Act was not a reason for termination at all, stating the Officer found “the alleged confidentiality breach was the reason for termination, not simply a reason.”
Regarding the assignment of a new Officer, the Appeal Body clarified that while its remittance orders refer to “the officer,” this does not prevent OHS from reassigning cases as necessary. The tribunal noted that “the Appeal Body generally has no role in determining the assignment of Officers in the course of an investigation into an occupational health and safety matter.”
The Appeal Body also rejected D.M.’s allegations of bias, stating: “The mere fact that the Report accepts the Respondent’s explanation of events rather than the Appellant’s interpretation of its motives does not create a reasonable apprehension of bias.”
As for D.M.’s claim that the Officer failed to adequately consider all evidence, particularly the timing of the termination shortly after raising safety concerns, the tribunal emphasized it does “not determine that a finding of fact is unreasonable simply because an appellant believes the OHS Officer should have weighed the evidence differently.”
Finally, the Appeal Body found no merit in D.M.’s argument that the investigation was insufficient, noting the parties had produced approximately 500 pages of records and that the Appeal Body had not directed further investigation in its previous decision, leaving that determination to the Officer’s discretion.
Conclusion
The Appeal Body summarily dismissed the appeal “in its entirety for lack of merit” under section 45(5)(g) of the Act, upholding the Officer’s finding that Amazon had successfully demonstrated the termination was for reasons unrelated to D.M. raising safety concerns.
For more information, see Martin v Amazon Data Services Canada Inc., 2025 ABOHSAB 10 (CanLII).
