Appeal body finds officer failed to test employer’s credibility on post-injury discipline
Vice-Chair Karen Scott rules on October 26, 2026 that an Alberta OHS officer failed to scrutinise an employer’s reasons for disciplining an injured worker.
The appeal body granted the appeal in Barnson v Global Power Technologies, 2026 ABOHSAB 19, remitting the disciplinary action complaint for reconsideration again. The worker, a journeyperson machinist, alleged the employer imposed escalating discipline after he reported a workplace injury on February 3, 2021, culminating in termination.
The complaint alleged contravention of section 18 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, SA 2020, c. O-2.2, which prohibits disciplinary action against a worker for compliance with the Act. The alleged conduct included interference with medical care, removal from the health and safety committee, formal warnings, a five-day unpaid suspension, corrective action, a performance improvement plan, and termination on September 23, 2021.
Officer took employer at its word
An OHS officer investigated and issued a report on October 24, 2025 dismissing the complaint, concluding the employer acted solely for non-OHS reasons such as insubordination, failure to communicate, and unsafe work practices.
The appeal body found this analysis was “not rational and coherent.” The officer had accepted the employer’s explanations without scrutiny despite the reverse onus under section 19(10), which presumes post-compliance discipline was motivated by that compliance and requires the employer to prove otherwise.
The worker raised concerns the report left unaddressed. He disputed the alleged misconduct, noted the employer first alleged communication failures on February 22, 2021, his first day back after the injury, and questioned why an alleged unsafe act on August 18 was not raised until August 31. He asserted the employer terminated him days after issuing a performance improvement plan without any chance to comply.
Things that don’t add up
The appeal body applied the framework from West Fraser Mills Ltd. v Gugumus, 2024 ABOHSAB 18, holding that “Officers cannot simply accept asserted grounds without question: they must subject them to careful scrutiny. The Officer’s task is to assess the credibility of the employer’s asserted grounds of discipline in all of the circumstances, and may draw inferences where appropriate and necessary, especially if ‘things don’t add up.’”
Whether the employer’s stated reasons are accurate remains relevant to credibility. As cited from Martin v Amazon Data Services Canada Inc., 2024 ABOHSAB 12: “The question in determining whether the Employer has met its onus is whether the Employer satisfies the Officer that its alleged reasons for discipline are, in fact, the actual and only reasons, and that the act of compliance did not taint the employer’s decision in this regard.”
The lack of scrutiny was “particularly glaring” around the August 18 allegation given the worker did not know what the unsafe act was and the report never identified it. The report failed to address why the employer issued a performance improvement plan on September 17 without mentioning alleged unsafe conduct on September 15 and 16, only to terminate days later.
Sent back again, with no timeline
The appeal body upheld two other findings.The employer’s handling of the worker’s injury did not amount to disciplinary action as those matters related to treatment and compensation rather than employment terms. The worker’s removal from the health and safety committee was “transparent and intelligible,” supported by pre-injury meeting notes showing planned membership changes.
The appeal body remitted the matter. The worker requested remedies within 30 days, but the appeal body declined, stating “the Act does not empower the Appeal Body to impose timelines on the OHS Officer’s reconsideration of his findings and Order.”
The original report dates to December 2022. The matter remains unresolved.
