Billy had his manufacturing job for just two weeks before he was fired. Did safety complaints lead to his termination?
Occupational Health and Safety Acts prohibit any employer from taking reprisal action against an employee for having raised a health and safety complaint. If an employer is found guilty, the ministry has broad powers to order reinstatement with back pay and/or damages.
Billy was employed for only two weeks before he was terminated. His job was at a manufacturing plant where the employer recycled used tires to make its products. Large machinery broke down the tires into what are called “crumbs.” Glue agents are then used to recycle those crumbs into rubber mats. A lot of fluff and dust is created in that process, and of course the employer provided personal protective equipment, including respirators, to all employees.
Billy complained when a co-worker was using an air gun to clean up fluff and dust from the floor. As a result of his complaint, procedures were changed so the air gun would be used only on the ceiling or hard to reach places in the machinery.
Billy was concerned about glue transferring to his clothes, dust in his clothes and the forklift having no brakes. The employer agreed to provide Billy with an apron. The next day, he was terminated. Billy filed a complaint with the Ministry of Labour claiming reprisal for him having raised health and safety concerns.
There is, of course, more to the story.
About one week after Billy started, the manager heard him shouting near the front door. The manager took Billy to his office, where he continued shouting and swearing about a co-worker using the air gun on the floor. The manager calmed him down and Billy went back to work. There were no further events until the day before Billy was fired.
The manager heard a commotion coming from the lunchroom. Billy was railing at his co-workers about safety issues. The manager and other supervisory staff escorted Billy to a boardroom. Billy was described as being argumentative, abrasive, combative and chaotic. The management team got him to slow down and actually articulate his safety concerns, which seemed to focus around air quality and possible clothing contamination due to the use of glue in the factory. It wasn’t until 22 minutes after the meeting with management started that Billy disclosed he was recording the conversation.
At this meeting, management told Billy that for the rest of the day they would not use the air gun to clean anywhere and would sweep instead and that, by the next day, they would provide him with an apron. Management assured Billy that the forklift was regularly inspected and Billy was not responsible for driving the forklift.
During the meeting, management tried to address one safety concern only to have Billy start shouting about another one before it could be discussed. He told them the amount of money they paid for safety boots was a joke. Given that Billy had made a recording of the meeting, it was clear he was aggressive and disrespectful throughout.
After the meeting ended, instead of going back to work, Billy went to the lunchroom and sat there. When the manager eventually came looking for him, he said he wasn’t going to do anything. He was going to stay in the lunchroom. He said he was there to “make hours.” Billy sat in the lunchroom for the rest of his shift and then went home. Billy later claimed that remaining in the lunchroom was him exercising his right to refuse unsafe work, but he never told management that. The next day Billy was terminated.
The investigating officer acting on behalf of the Ministry of Labour sided with the employer and dismissed Billy’s complaint. Billy appealed and a new hearing was held. It was decided that Billy’s concerns about dust landing on his clothes was not a reasonable safety concern and it was part of the job Billy took. The adjudicator, which heard Billy’s conveniently made recording, found that during that last meeting Billy was argumentative, insulting, interruptive, disrespectful, insubordinate and insolent. Billy’s case was dismissed. It was clear Billy was terminated because of his behaviour and bad attitude and he could not hide behind his safety concerns.
Billy’s case is, unfortunately, not unique. While most reprisal complaints I have seen are valid, some people overestimate the protection afforded by their complaints.
This article was originally published by The Hamilton Spectator.
