Worker claimed dismissal was due to disability of poor eyesight
A British Columbia company’s firing of an employee was related to its concerns over his job performance and assicated afety issues, not a disability due to poor eyesight, the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal has ruled.
Christopher Taylor was a structural welder for Ironside Design Manufacturing, a Chilliwack, B.C. company that performs structural welding work on projects such as buildings and playgrounds. Due to the nature of its business, safety is a top priority at Ironside.
After a period of time when the company noticed Taylor’s work was deteriorating, Ironside developed ways to help him improve. However, when this didn’t yield satisfactory results, the company suggested to Taylor that he get his eyes checked. Taylor didn’t feel there was any issue with his eyesight, as he had never worn prescription glasses — though he did wear reading glasses — and had never had any vision issues in 30 years of working as a welder — the last 10 years with Ironside.
In April 2015, Taylor welded a large spool meant to carry heavy wire onto a truck. However, the welds were so bad that the bed wasn’t attached, leading to a risk that it could come loose while the truck was on the highway and cause serious injury or death. Ironside determined that this incident demonstrated Taylor’s quality of work had gotten to the point where the risks were too great to let him continue. It terminated his employment effective April 11.
Ironside informed Taylor that his termination was due to incompetence, as the poor quality of his work created a significant threat to public safety.”
Taylor filed an action for wrongful dismissal in the B.C. Supreme Court, claiming no one at Ironside had raised any concerns about his eyesight until two days after his termination, when he said Ironside’s vice-president told him his eyesight was affecting his ability to pass performance tests required to retain his welding certificate. He then filed a complaint of discrimination regarding employment on the basis of physical disability with the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal, saying he was “not made aware of Ironside’s discriminatory perception of my eyesight” until obtaining affidavits for the wrongful dismissal case discussing Ironside’s concerns about his eyesight.
The tribunal found it was uncertain that Taylor had a disability since he had never worn prescription glasses, but if Ironside thought he had one and that played a role in the decision to terminate, it could be an issue. The tribunal also found Taylor’s termination could be considered adverse impact regarding employment.
However, Taylor was aware that Ironside had concerns about his eyesight long before his saw the affidavits for his wrongful dismissal action — Taylor himself acknowledged that the vice-president asked him about it two days after his termination.
The tribunal found that Ironside had been concerned with Taylor’s work for some time and had made attempts to improve it — making it likely its recommendation for Taylor to get his eyes checked did happen. In addition, Ironside’s concerns had to do with his performance and the safety issues that were tied to it. Regardless of what Taylor found out later in his wrongful dismissal action, it should have been clear to him that Ironside was concerned with his performance and related safety issues, and the company inquired as to whether his eyesight was a factor in it — not to dismiss him, but to improve his performance and reduce safety risks, said the tribunal.
“It is reasonably certain that the tribunal would characterize Ironside’s questions about whether Mr. Taylor’s eyesight affected his work as a fulfilment of its duty to inquire rather than as an implication of a discriminatory basis for its decision,” the tribunal said.
See Taylor v. Ironside Design Manufacturing, 2017 CarswellBC 3070 (B.C. Human Rights Trib.).
