A British Columbia sales advisor who claimed she was fired for raising workplace concerns has lost her appeal after a tribunal found her employer terminated her employment due to job abandonment, not retaliation.
The Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal upheld a Workers’ Compensation Board decision dismissing the worker’s prohibited action complaint. The worker, who had been employed for three years preparing food samples at a wholesale distributor location, argued she was dismissed on June 16, 2022, in retaliation for reporting health and safety concerns about her manager.
The tribunal found the worker failed to establish she had reported occupationally protected health and safety issues as required under section 48 of the Workers Compensation Act.
Conflict over workplace policies
The dispute began after a new manager implemented stricter enforcement of existing policies in May 2022. The employer, a contractor for a large wholesale distributor, was required to meet specific standards for product displays, cleanliness, food temperatures, and sample sizes.
On May 28, 2022, the worker emailed her manager expressing concerns about being assigned complicated food sampling stations and feeling unsupported. She contacted the employer’s head office on May 31, 2022, listing issues including being late to a station, a missed temperature log by a co-worker covering for her, and receiving incorrect pricing information.
The head office investigated and responded on June 2, 2022. The investigation found the worker had been assigned two complicated stations in the prior month — no more than other employees. Records showed she had been late multiple times and had failed to check or document food temperatures on May 28, 2022.
Incident over cheese preparation
On June 4, 2022, the worker was assigned to prepare grilled cheese sandwiches. The manager observed she was not following the wholesale distributor’s specifications for the amount of cheese on sandwiches. When he asked her to put more cheese on the sandwiches, she replied she could do what she wanted and did not need to follow his instructions, according to the employer’s evidence. The manager sent her home for insubordination.
On June 7, 2022, the worker requested vacation leave from June 8 to June 14. The manager denied the request because she had not provided two weeks’ notice as required by policy. The employer had prepared a written warning about her conduct, scheduled for discussion on June 8, 2022.
The worker did not attend work on June 8, 9, 10, or 11. The manager made multiple attempts to contact her by email and phone. She did not respond to any communications.
On June 16, 2022, the employer emailed the worker advising her employment was terminated due to abandonment.
Tribunal analysis
The tribunal applied a four-part test for prohibited action complaints. First, it confirmed the worker suffered negative employment consequences through termination.
The tribunal then examined whether the worker engaged in protected safety activities. It found her May 28 and May 31 emails focused on work distribution and performance feedback, not unsafe working conditions. “I find her reports to be suggestive that she was dissatisfied with her assigned work and requirements to follow the employer’s policies, with which she did not agree,” the tribunal stated.
Even considering the worker’s emails as potential reports of bullying and harassment, the tribunal found a causal connection based on timing but concluded the employer rebutted any presumption of prohibited action.
The tribunal found the employer’s view of job abandonment was reasonable given eight days of no contact after the denied vacation request. “I am satisfied that the employer’s view of the worker abandoning her employment was reasonable,” the tribunal determined.
The worker also claimed in later submissions that her manager had placed his hands around her neck on May 27, 2022, but she acknowledged never reporting this incident.
The tribunal emphasized it did not need to determine whether the employer correctly concluded job abandonment occurred under wrongful dismissal law — only whether the employer’s reasoning was unmotivated by anti-safety attitudes.
The appeal was denied and the Board’s original decision was confirmed.
For more information, see A2401312 (Re), 2025 CanLII 128045 (BC WCAT).
