Termination Justified When Downplaying a Safety Violation
In safety-sensitive work environments, following workplace safety policies isn’t optional; it’s essential. A recent arbitration decision highlights that even long-term employees can face termination for cause if they breach safety protocols and downplay the risks involved.
In West Fraser Mills (100 Mile House Operation) v. United Steelworkers, Local 1-2017, 2025 CanLII 57034, the arbitrator upheld the dismissal of an employee with 19 years of service, who violated a lock-out safety policy and treated the incident as insignificant. This decision reinforces the principle that Ontario employers may be able to justify termination for cause where safety rules are knowingly disregarded.
What Happened?
The worker, employed since 2005, was an oiler at a lumber mill. On the day of the incident, he attempted to clear a drainage pipe beneath oil barrels near a slow-moving conveyor belt. Instead of following the company’s lock-out procedure which required the equipment to be powered down he chose to bypass it, believing the task to be low-risk and quick.
To access the blockage, the worker knelt with his with feet and legs on either side of the active conveyor belt and dislodged the obstruction with a coat hanger. His actions were observed by a maintenance planner, who reported the incident to management. When questioned, the worker downplayed the seriousness of the safety breach, suggested the policy was excessive, and expressed frustration at being caught.
Employer Response and Investigation
West Fraser Mills had a strict lock-out policy in place, a common and necessary safety measure in many industrial workplaces in Canada. The company viewed the breach as a serious violation, particularly because the worker:
- Deliberately chose not to follow the required safety procedure.
- Attempted to minimize the seriousness of his actions.
- Expressed little to no remorse during the internal investigation.
- Indicated he regularly engaged in similar “grey area” behaviours.
Although the employee later apologized during arbitration, the arbitrator found the apology to be more of a tactical move than a sincere acknowledgment of wrongdoing.
As Christopher Achkar, employment lawyer and founder of Achkar Law, explains:
“When an employee downplays a safety violation, it puts your workplace, reputation, and compliance at risk. Before taking decisive action, employers should seek legal advice to ensure any termination is both justified and legally defensible.”
Arbitrator’s Decision
The arbitrator ruled that termination for cause was justified.
Key findings included:
- Deliberate Violation: The worker consciously chose to ignore a clear and important safety policy.
- Lack of Remorse: His initial response showed no understanding of the risk or accountability.
- Ongoing Risk: The employee’s comments suggested he might continue to disregard safety procedures in the future.
Despite his long service and clean safety record, the arbitrator concluded that the breach, combined with the employee’s attitude, undermined the trust necessary for continued employment in a hazardous work environment.
The grievance was dismissed, and the termination upheld.
What This Means for Employers
This case offers a valuable lesson for employers operating in high-risk industries.
Here’s what you need to know:
- Just Cause Requires Serious Misconduct: Just cause for termination is a high bar but serious safety violations can meet that standard, especially when combined with a lack of accountability or remorse.
- Safety Policies Must Be Clear and Enforced: Employers should ensure safety policies, including lock-out/tag-out procedures, are well-documented, clearly communicated, and consistently enforced.
- Documentation is Key: Properly recording safety training, incident investigations, and employee responses is essential if discipline or termination is challenged.
- Attitude Matters: Arbitrators and courts assess how employees respond after a safety incident. Downplaying the situation or shifting blame may validate that a just cause termination was warranted and support an argument that reinstatement cannot be achieved safely.
When Should Employers Consider Termination for Cause?
Termination for cause should not be taken lightly. However, it may be justified where:
- The employee knowingly violates an essential safety policy.
- The misconduct creates real or potential danger to themselves or others.
- There is a demonstrated lack of remorse or insight.
- Progressive discipline is unlikely to correct the behaviour.
How We Can Help
At Achkar Law, we help employers assess the risks and legal implications of terminating employees for safety violations. Whether you are investigating a workplace incident or responding to a grievance, our team can help ensure your processes are legally sound and defensible.
Contact Achkar Law
Speak with an experienced labour and employment lawyer about your workplace policies, investigations, or termination decisions.
The article in this client update provides general information and should not be relied on as legal advice or opinion. This publication is copyrighted by Achkar Law Professional Corporation and may not be photocopied or reproduced in any form, in whole or in part, without the express permission of Achkar Law Professional Corporation. ©