Former worker says he withdrew safety-reprisal claim after ‘senior HR lady’ called him
The Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) has dismissed an attempt by a former Triple M Metal worker to revive a withdrawn Occupational Health and Safety Act reprisal complaint.
It found there was no basis to set aside his earlier decision to abandon the case.
In a decision dated March 18, 2026, vice‑chair Lennie Lejasisaks ruled that the request to reopen his section 50 application under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.O.1, as amended, should not proceed.
Background to withdrawn application
The worker originally filed his application with the board on May 23, 2025, alleging an unlawful reprisal under section 50 of the Act.
Less than two weeks later, on June 3, 2025, the board received correspondence from him withdrawing the application, and the registrar formally withdrew the matter the same day.
More than eight months later, on Feb. 14, 2026, the worker wrote to the board requesting a “re-opening” of his application. In that correspondence, he claimed that an individual he described as “senior human resources staff” from Triple M Metal had telephoned him on June 3, 2025 and made “threatening or coercive statements” that led him to withdraw his application later that day.
‘Unusual’ request to re-open application
The board characterized both the delay and the nature of the allegations as out of the ordinary, noting that “the applicant’s request to re-open this application approximately eight months after it was withdrawn and allegations against the responding party employer are unusual.”
It also emphasized that its “practice is not to re-open matters which have voluntary been withdrawn.”
Given the seriousness of the allegation that the employer’s conduct may have influenced the withdrawal, the board directed the worker to provide submissions setting out his allegations and explaining his request to reopen the case, with a deadline of March 10, 2026. Triple M Metal was given until March 17, 2026 to respond.
The worker was also ordered to deliver to the employer a copy of his Feb. 14, 2026 correspondence seeking to re-open the application by March 5, 2026, and to file a certificate of delivery confirming compliance with the Board’s Rules of Procedure.
Confusion over delivery and late submissions
The record before the board shows that the worker filed a Certificate of Delivery on March 11, 2026, stating that on March 5, 2026 he had delivered a copy of his Feb. 14 correspondence to a Triple M Metal representative via email. He did not explain why this certificate was only filed six days after the alleged delivery date.
The next day, on March 12, 2026, the worker filed a second Certificate of Delivery, this time indicating that he had delivered the same correspondence to the representative on March 6, 2026. No explanation was provided for the different delivery date in the second filing.
The worker’s substantive submissions were filed with the board on March 11, 2026, after the March 10 deadline. On the board’s Form A‑108 Electronic Submissions Form, he confirmed that the submissions were delivered in accordance with the Board’s Rules of Procedure to all other parties.
Call from ‘senior HR lady’
In those submissions, the worker stated that on the morning of June 3, 2025 he received “a call from the senior HR lady at Triple M Metal.” He reported that during this call he outlined issues he had with certain individuals at the company, which the board noted “presumably relate to the allegations contained in the application.” His submissions then continued with further allegations related to his employment, again “presumably related to the application.”
However, the board found that the worker’s submissions did not elaborate on the central claim that a company representative had made “threatening or coercive statements” prompting him to withdraw his application. It noted that “the submissions contain no further information regarding the allegations that a representative of the responding party made threatening or coercive statements on June 3, 2025 that led him to withdraw the application later that day,” beyond what was already stated in his Feb. 14, 2026 request to reopen.
Employer disputes allegations
Counsel for Triple M Metal responded on March 13, 2026, informing the board that the company had not received any correspondence from the worker relating to the submissions the board had directed. Counsel stated that after he filed his application on May 23, 2025, “the applicant then executed a separation and release with the responding party and subsequently withdrew the application.”
No copy of any separation or release agreement was provided to the board as part of the record before it. Counsel submitted that the worker had made “unsubstantiated allegations regarding the responding party’s conduct.”
The board observed that, based on the Form A‑108 filed in connection with the worker’s March 11 submissions, “it is not clear to the board whether the applicant delivered his submissions to the responding party.” Nonetheless, the board proceeded to determine the request “based on the late-filed submissions from the applicant and the submissions filed by the responding party.”
Lack of particulars, passage of time prove decisive
In reviewing the timeline and the contents of the filings, the board highlighted both the delay in seeking to reopen the matter and the absence of specific details about the alleged coercive conduct.
It noted that the request to reopen, dated Feb. 14, 2026, was made “over eight months after the withdrawal on June 3, 2025” and contained only an “unparticularized allegation” that a “senior human resources staff” member called him and made “threatening or coercive statements.” The decision records that the worker “has not described the statements, or how they were threatening or coercive, or, indeed, who actually made the statements.”
The board further found that he “has failed to provide any further details or particulars regarding the alleged threatening or coercive statements in his March 11, 2026 submissions.” Triple M Metal, for its part, denied the allegations and maintained that “the parties entered into a separation and release, which resulted in the withdrawal of the application.”
The board concluded that, “in the absence of material facts supporting a claim of a threat or coercion sufficient to relieve the applicant from the consequences of withdrawing the application, and given the amount of time that has elapsed since the application was withdrawn, there is no compelling rationale for the board to permit the applicant to re-open the application.”
On that basis, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the worker’s attempt to revive his section 50 reprisal application.
