Sales advisor claimed she was fired for raising concerns about her manager
A British Columbia worker who claimed she was fired for raising concerns about her manager has lost her appeal, after vice chair Kristina Nelless of the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal found the employer ended her employment because it reasonably concluded she had abandoned her job — and not in retaliation for her complaints about her manager.
The worker had spent three years as a sales advisor preparing food samples for a large wholesale distributor, employed through a contractor. Tensions began after a new manager arrived and enforced existing rules on grooming, sanitation, food temperatures and sample sizes tied to the contractor’s obligations to the wholesale client.
In emails on May 28 and May 31, 2022, the worker complained to her manager and then to head office that she was repeatedly assigned “complicated” sampling stations, was being blamed for being late to serve customers, and was being criticized over a missed temperature log entry and wrong pricing information for a product she was displaying.
Head office reviewed the assignments of complicated stations, her recorded lateness and her temperature records and, in a June 2 email, reported that she had only two complex stations in the prior month and had been late by two to five minutes on several occasions.
The tribunal later summarized these exchanges as concerns about work distribution and performance expectations rather than about unsafe conditions. As vice chair Nelless wrote, “I find her reports to be suggestive that she was dissatisfied with her assigned work and requirements to follow the employer’s policies, with which she did not agree.”
From cheese station dispute to termination
On June 4, 2022, the worker was assigned to prepare grilled cheese samples under specific product guidelines. The manager observed she was not using the required amount of cheese and directed her to adjust.
According to the employer’s evidence, she replied that she could do what she wanted and did not need to follow his instructions — and she was sent home for insubordination.
On June 7, the worker requested vacation from June 8 to 14. The manager denied the request, citing a policy requiring two weeks’ notice.
The employer had also prepared a written warning addressing earlier incidents, including missed temperature checks, leaving a sampling station unattended and refusing to remove a watch while handling food.
The worker then failed to report for scheduled shifts on June 8, 9, 10 and 11. The manager emailed her on each of the first three days and left voice messages asking her to contact him. She did not respond.
On June 16, the employer emailed to state that it was treating the situation as abandonment of her employment and issued a record of employment (ROE) noting her termination.
When complaints are not ‘protected’
The tribunal applied the statutory test for prohibited action and accepted that termination was a negative employment consequence. However, it found the worker’s emails to management did not amount to reporting occupationally protected health and safety issues under section 48 of the Workers Compensation Act.
Even on an alternative view that her messages could be read as complaints about bullying or harassment, the tribunal concluded the employer’s decision to terminate was based on her extended, unexplained absence and lack of contact after the denied vacation request.
Reviewing the unanswered emails and calls between June 8 and June 10, Nelless held that the employer was correct: “I am satisfied that the employer’s view of the worker abandoning her employment was reasonable.”
See A2401312 (Re)
