The Manitoba Labour Board has dismissed an appeal by a former employee of L. Chabot Enterprises who alleged he was unjustly dismissed in retaliation for raising workplace safety concerns. The Board concluded that the employer did not terminate him due to his safety complaint and that any negative employment consequences resulted from his own conduct.
In its decision, the Board found that while the worker had raised safety issues after an altercation with a co-worker on June 16, 2023, he failed to establish that his employer had taken any reprisal against him under The Workplace Safety and Health Act (WSHA).
Background
K.G. began working for L. Chabot Enterprises on June 13, 2023, in an entry-level position operating a packer. Just three days into his employment, he was involved in a confrontation with a co-worker. K.G. testified that while he was warming up his machine, a co-worker approached him, leading to a verbal altercation. He claimed the co-worker turned off his machine, chased and shoved him, and threatened to throw a rock at him.
The supervisor intervened and sent the co-worker home. The supervisor also contacted the company’s vice-president, who represented the employer at the hearing. She recalled being informed that it was K.G. who had picked up a rock and threatened the co-worker. She testified that she asked the supervisor to have K.G. contact her after lunch, but he did not do so. “As she did not receive any further complaint or concern, she had understood that ‘cooler heads had prevailed’ and that the matter had resolved,” the decision states.
K.G. left work early that day, stating he was pre-approved to do so for personal reasons. On June 18, he contacted the employer to inquire about his shifts and was informed that his packer was under repair and would be out of commission for a few days. The vice-president testified there were no other packers available and that K.G. was not qualified to operate other machinery. She advised him to contact the office to see if alternative work was available.
On June 19, K.G. exchanged text messages with his foreman regarding possible alternative work. The foreman informed him that his packer was down due to a “bad oil leak” and that an extra packer operator was not needed. He also mentioned that it would be up to the office if both K.G. and the co-worker were terminated, claiming that three people had witnessed K.G. picking up a rock—a claim K.G. denied.
Confrontational response from worker
In response, K.G. was confrontational, accusing his supervisor of sleeping on the job and being unqualified. He stated, “I will be reporting you guys to health and safety because you are allowing people to smoke weed on the job, drink on the job, sleep on the job and not have proper licensing to operate the machines and there’s no safety or anything out there whatsoever.”
That same day, K.G. contacted the payroll department, sending his hours worked and copying the text exchanges. He did not receive a response and did not follow up further. He also contacted the Workplace Safety and Health Branch, alleging that his employment had been terminated on June 18, 2023, as a result of raising safety concerns.
The employer maintained that K.G. remained employed when he filed his complaint. The vice-president testified that they had operational issues with his machine and that he was not terminated. She stated that after K.G. indicated he was not interested in working for the company and had filed complaints with Workplace Safety and Health and the RCMP, they understood he did not wish to address his workplace concerns and proceeded to issue a Record of Employment.
The Board’s analysis
In its analysis, the Board applied the legal framework under the WSHA, which prohibits employers from taking reprisals against workers for exercising their rights under the Act. To establish a prima facie case of reprisal, a worker must demonstrate that they invoked their rights under the WSHA, suffered negative employment consequences as a result, and that there is a timely and reasonable connection between the two.
The Board acknowledged that K.G. had raised safety concerns, satisfying the first part of the test. However, it found that he did not suffer negative employment consequences as a result of raising those concerns. The Board noted that K.G. was informed his machine was under repair and was advised to contact the office for alternative work, which he failed to do adequately.
“Even if the Appellant had established a prima facie case, with the onus shifting to the Employer to demonstrate that it did not retaliate against the Appellant, the Board would still conclude, on a balance of probabilities, that the Employer’s actions were in no way motivated by an anti‑health and safety animus,” the decision states.
The Board found that any negative employment consequences K.G. experienced were due to his own conduct, particularly his disrespectful exchanges with his foreman and the vice-president. It emphasized that the WSHA does not protect workers from all negative employment consequences or insulate them against disciplinary action unrelated to safety complaints.
“The fact an employee feels that a dismissal is unfair, that management behaved improperly or falsely accused the employee, that dismissal is simply unjust or that the notice provided was insufficient, does not fall within the remedial jurisdiction of the Board under the Act,” the Board noted, citing a previous decision.
The Board concluded that K.G. failed to establish a prima facie case of a breach of section 42(1) of the WSHA and dismissed the appeal.
For more information, see K.G. v L. Chabot Enterprises Ltd., 2024 CanLII 105200 (MB LB).
