Worker breached workplace policy shortly after raising safety concerns
The Ontario Labour Relations Board has dismissed a worker’s allegation that her termination was a reprisal for a work refusal, finding that the employer had legitimate reasons for firing her that were unrelated to any exercise of safety rights.
The worker was an associate for Amazon Canada Fulfillment Services at its fulfillment centre in Hamilton since September 2022. She was responsible for receiving and putting away inventory, preparing customer orders, packing orders, and loading orders onto trucks.
Employees were required to pass through a metal detector and open any bags they had, as part of loss prevention policies, and any incidents were later investigated within a month to determine if they were inadvertent or the employee was culpable.
In March 2023, Amazon issued the worker two written notices about failing to properly clear security screening when she left the facility. In the first incident, she didn’t take off her belt or clear her jacket through the screening. The worker wrote in the report that she was wearing a belt and she would “continue to do so to hold my pants up.” In the second incident, she got frustrated with the metal detector beeping as she quickly walked through three times. She refused to fill out the report form and said she would do it on her break when she had time. When she did, she wrote that the metal detector was broken.
Employer issued written warnings
The worker received a written warning in June 2023 for behaving “in an abusive, profane, and insulting manner towards a supervisor” after the supervisor told her not to use her cellphone while working, which was a safety violation. She also received a final written warning the following month for attendance problems.
Amazon issued another final behavioural warning in October 2023 for violating safety standards and abusing equipment after she threw totes from her station to the floor. This was followed on Jan. 31, 2024, with a first written warning about her quality of work.
On Feb. 27, the worker tried to leave the facility without passing her jacket through the metal detector or x-ray machine, instead putting it on a table where things were manually inspected. A security guard asked her to comply with the requirement to take her jacket through the metal detector, but the worker refused and left.
On March 8, the worker refused to work at her assigned work station for safety reasons, saying it was too hot to safely work there. She reported her work refusal to her managers and the Occupational Health and Safety Branch of the provincial Ministry of Labour.
Work refusal investigated
Amazon’s joint health and safety committee investigated the work refusal and found that the temperature was at an acceptable, safe level. A Ministry of Labour inspector came and conducted readings at the work station and a second station, finding that both had no risk or discomfort with water available as needed. The inspector concluded that the worker wasn’t endangered and advised her to follow her employer’s directions.
On March 22, the loss prevention manager held a meeting with the worker and an HR representative to discuss the Feb. 27 security clearance incident, as was normal procedure. He wasn’t aware of the worker’s work refusal two weeks earlier.
The worker said she couldn’t recall the Feb. 27 incident. After the meeting, the loss prevention manager confirmed to the HR department that the worker had violated the security standards of conduct policy and send a security camera video of the incident.
On March 26, management determined that termination was appropriate, given that the worker had already been given a final written warning for behaviour in October 2023 – after which Amazon’s progressive discipline policy stated that termination was the next step. In addition, they felt that the worker’s breach was of a level that the discipline policy allowed for termination on its own.
Employer terminated worker’s employment
Amazon terminated the worker’s employment on March 28. The next day, she made a complaint to the company’s ethics line alleging that she was terminated because of her work refusal. An ethics line investigator determined that she was terminated for a security violation and her health and safety concerns were unrelated.
The worker then filed a complaint with the board, alleging that Amazon violated the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) by terminating her employment because she exercised her rights under the OHSA.
The board noted that s. 50 of the OHSA prohibits reprisals against workers for exercising their rights under the act, but requires a causal connection between the exercise of such rights and any adverse action taken by the employer, with the employer having the onus of proof that there is no connection.
The board found that the evidence established that the decision to terminate was based on the worker’s disciplinary record and the security policy violation, and that the management team responsible for the termination was unaware of her work refusal at the time the decision was made. While the timing of the loss prevention investigation meeting was close to the work refusal, it was part of normal procedure in such investigations, which were done within a month of an incident, the board said.
No reprisal for work refusal
The board also accepted the evidence that all three behavioural warnings relied upon by Amazon had been issued to worker, and that the company’s discipline policies indicated that termination was the normal next step after a final behavioural warning.
The board determined that there was no connection between the worker’s exercise of her rights under the OHSA and her termination.
“It must be remembered that a discharge or other discipline that is carried out for reasons not related to or tainted by consideration of the exercise of the worker’s rights, are not reprisals that would violate [s. 50]. I am satisfied that is what happened here,” said the board in dismissing the worker’s complaint.
