yer Adrian Miedema explains.
“The main problem was the fact that the employee was fired the day after he had brought the safety complaint so the timing of the firing would lead a lot of adjudicators to scrutinize very carefully whether the firing was because of the safety complaint,” Miedema told HRM.
Employee Kim Le had complained to a company representative that carrying boxes up and down stairs had caused him to suffer knee pain and flagged up a safety concern that some loads were obstructing his view.
The next day, he was fired.
“The timing really was terrible,” stressed Miedema, a partner at Dentons law firm, in Toronto.
“Secondly, the reasons that the employer gave for the termination at the hearing just didn’t have a ring of seriousness,” he said.
In the hearing, former supervisor Nick Perry gave evidence on behalf of the company, Safecross First Aid Limited.
Perry claimed Le had been dismissed because he was “not himself,” was “complacent”, was “not doing what he normally would be doing” and was “entrenched in what he was doing next.”
“When you have the combination of the timing – immediately after the guy made the safety complaint – and a really shoddy or really weak basis for terminating him, the OLRB is going to lean towards concluding that the termination was because of the safety complaint,” said Miedema.
Interestingly, Perry was the only witness for Safecross – the company representative who received Le’s complaint didn’t testify and the OLRB accepted Le’s evidence that he had in fact filed the grievance.
“When somebody who’s a witness doesn’t even come to testify, the adjudicator usually concludes that there’s a reason why they didn’t come to testify so they impose what’s called an ‘adverse inference,’” explains Miedema.
An Ontario worker who was sacked the day after making a safety complaint has just won a reinstatement order thanks to his employer’s terrible timing – here, leading