Manitoba worker had work-related health issue
A Manitoba company had just cause to fire a worker who failed to follow masking directions based on medical information related to the worker’s medical condition stemming from occupational exposure to hazards, the province’s Labour Board has ruled.
ECB Verdyol is a manufacturer of erosion and sediment control products that are designed to trap sediment while allowing water to flow through. The worker was hired by ECB in March 2020 to work at its manufacturing facility in Blumenort, Man.
ECB’s products contain straw, flax, and peat moss, which produces large amounts of dust that disperse throughout the facility including the office area. The worker worked primarily in the facility’s bale busting area, which was the area with the most dust.
In early 2023, the worker experienced symptoms such as shortness of breath, chest pain, and coughing up blood. He was diagnosed with a medical condition related to his occupational exposure to hay in the bale busting area at work, which caused inflammation in his lungs.
Medical restrictions
The worker’s doctor wrote a letter dated March 31 stating that the worker could reduce exposure to the antigens in the hay by moving to another area in the workplace that was less dusty or leaving his job. A second letter indicated that there were two types of face masks that the worker could use at work.
The worker filed a worker’s compensation claim and the Manitoba Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) found that the worker was fit to work but was subject to restrictions against him working in areas exposing him to hay and peat moss dust, and the worker would use a new filtered mask that would allow him to work in an area with hay and peat moss. The WCB followed up with a letter advising that the worker was fit to return to work with a permanent restriction of avoiding hay exposure.
ECB reassigned the worker to the peat moss area in the facility, which was considerably less dusty. A letter from the plant manager confirmed that the company had provided all employees with full face masks with P100 particulate filters and the worker should wear one on the factory floor. The letter also noted that the worker chose to wear a mask without a particulate filter and asked him to obtain a doctor’s recommendation for a suitable mask to wear at work.
The worker provided a doctor’s note recommending two types of mask – a half-face respirator or a more sophisticated one with a powered air purifying respirator. ECB insisted that the worker wear a P100 filtered mask at all times when he was working.
Disciplinary warning for not following medical restrictions
However, in late April, the worker was seen several times not wearing a mask while working in the peat moss area. ECB issued a disciplinary warning for this and also for not properly maintaining a machine for which he was responsible. The worker considered the warning as unfair and said he was wearing a mask and only removed it to talk to someone.
On May 8, the plant manager directed the worker to wear the air purifying respirator mask recommended by the doctor, at all times in the facility. If the worker didn’t want to, he would have to get the consent of his doctor and the WCB.
On Sept. 11, the worker was again observed multiples times not wearing a mask in the facility. ECB issued a “final written warning” stating that the worker was “jeopardizing your health and also creating liability for ECB” and, if he failed to follow masking directions again, he would be fired.
On September 18, 2023, the worker was again seen not wearing a mask. The CEO asked the worker if he had been wearing a mask that day and the worker said that he had. The CEO determined that the worker was lying, as other employees had confirmed the worker had not worn a mask.
Company terminated worker’s employment
ECB terminated the worker’s employment. The worker filed a claim with the provincial Employment Standards Branch, which dismissed the claim. The worker then appealed to the Labour Board, arguing that ECB misunderstood the medical information and that masking wasn’t necessary in the less-dusty peat moss area.
The board found that ECB’s masking requirement was reasonable given the worker’s medical condition and the pervasive dust in the facility, noting that the company had communicated its expectations clearly in writing, particularly the May 8 letter from the plant manager that directed the worker to wear a specific type of mask at all times while at work.
The board also found that the information from the worker’s doctor didn’t sufficiently address the company’s concerns or justify revoking the masking requirement. As a result, the worker was obligated to comply with the mask requirement unless he provided sufficient information to persuade ECB to revoke or revise it, which he didn’t, said the board.
In addition, the board found that ECB was clear in requesting additional medical information before considering any change to the masking requirement.
The board determined that the worker’s repeated failure to comply with the masking requirement, despite clear warnings, constituted just cause for termination. The worker’s appeal was dismissed. See Y.H. v. ECB Verdyol, 2025 CanLII 76788.
