An office manager whose supervisor bullied and harassed her — including threatening her job security in front of co-workers — is entitled to WCB benefits for psychological injury, the Appeals Commission for Alberta Workers’ Compensation has ruled.
It rejected an appeal by the employer, confirming that the injury was predominantly caused by work-related events that were excessive and unusual compared to normal workplace pressures.
It said the public threat that her “job was on the line” was “threatening, aggressive, and abusive.”
The case originated from a claim filed by the worker on Oct. 20, 2022, citing psychological abuse from her direct supervisor. The worker, employed as a finance/office manager in a rural administrative setting, described a pattern of bullying and harassment, including being subjected to yelling and threatening comments from her supervisor.
Following the initial acceptance of the claim by the WCB on March 22, 2023, the employer sought a review from the Dispute Resolution and Decision Review Body (DRDRB), which upheld the WCB’s decision on Aug. 8, 2023.
The employer subsequently filed a Notice of Appeal on Sept. 14, 2023, contesting the findings.
Key findings and rationale
The Appeals Commission’s decision was significantly influenced by a Comprehensive Psychological Assessment (CPA) conducted on March 2, 2023. The assessment diagnosed the worker with major depressive disorder and generalized anxiety disorder, attributing these conditions to the cumulative workplace stressors and the bullying behavior of the supervisor.
The Commission found substantial evidence supporting the worker’s claims, including witness testimonies that corroborated the abusive conduct of the supervisor.
One witness described an incident where the supervisor was “demeaning towards the worker and implying she was not doing her job,” while another witness recounted a staff meeting where the supervisor threatened the worker’s job security in front of colleagues.
It happened during a staff discussion about a year-end audit where he said — in front of everyone in the room — “if things can’t be resolved properly your job is on the line.”
Another witness described an incident when she “overheard the boss and the worker in an elevated argument. The predominant voice was male and went on for four to five minutes,” the ruling stated.
“This was described as shouting. The witness entered the room hoping to diffuse the situation and the worker was in tears, trying to explain something to the boss who was not listening. The witness indicated the manner the worker was being addressed was inappropriate in a work setting.”
The Commission’s analysis concluded that the incidents described were not only excessive but also unusual compared to the normal pressures experienced by workers in similar positions. The ruling emphasized that such behavior created a traumatic work environment that significantly impacted the worker’s mental health.
Medical evidence and legal framework
The decision referenced several key pieces of medical evidence, including the Physician First Report dated Nov. 21, 2022, which noted the worker’s symptoms of stress and anxiety as a result of the supervisor’s behavior. Further, the CPA provided a detailed assessment confirming the diagnoses and recommending cognitive behavioral therapy and stress inoculation training as part of the worker’s treatment plan.
The Commission also drew upon WCB policies that outline the criteria for compensable psychological injuries. According to Policy 03-01, Part II, Application 6, claims for psychological injuries must meet specific criteria, including a confirmed diagnosis in line with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) and evidence that the injury arose from work-related stressors that are excessive or unusual.
Employer’s arguments and commission’s rebuttal
During the appeal, the employer’s representative argued that the described incidents were typical workplace interactions and should not be classified as bullying or harassment.
They contended that the worker’s perceptions of the events were subjective and not indicative of a hostile work environment. Furthermore, the representative suggested that any psychological issues the worker experienced were internal and not directly caused by the workplace.
The Commission, however, found these arguments unconvincing. It emphasized the consistency of the worker’s accounts with witness statements and medical evaluations.
“We find the independent observations provided by interviewed witnesses satisfy the requirement for objective confirmation of the events,” it said. “We find that confirmation indicates relations between the worker and her boss were traumatic and excessive or unusual in comparison to the normal pressures and tensions in a similar setting.”
For more information, see Decision No.: 2024-0304, 2024 CanLII 67791 (AB WCAC).
