Short answer
An Alberta appeals board has sent an injured machinist's discipline complaint back to an OHS officer for a third review, finding the officer accepted the employer's stated reasons without testing them. Employers must prove post-injury discipline was for non-OHS reasons.
An Alberta OHS appeal board has sent an injured worker's discipline complaint back to an OHS officer for a third review, after finding the officer accepted the employer's stated reasons without testing them.
The decision is Barnson v Global Power Technologies, 2026 ABOHSAB 19, with Vice-Chair Karen Scott ruling on October 26, 2026, as reported by Canadian Occupational Safety.
What the complaint alleged
The worker was a journeyperson machinist. He reported a workplace injury on February 3, 2021, and alleged the employer then imposed escalating discipline: 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.
His complaint alleged a contravention of section 18 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, which prohibits disciplinary action against a worker for complying with the Act.
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.
Why the board sent it back
The board called the officer's analysis "not rational and coherent." The officer had accepted the employer's explanations without scrutiny, despite the reverse onus under section 19(10), which presumes that discipline imposed after a worker's compliance with the Act was motivated by that compliance and requires the employer to prove otherwise.
The board applied its framework from West Fraser Mills Ltd. v Gugumus, 2024 ABOHSAB 18: officers "cannot simply accept asserted grounds without question" and must assess the credibility of the employer's stated reasons, particularly where "things don't add up." It also cited Martin v Amazon Data Services Canada Inc., 2024 ABOHSAB 12, which frames the question as whether the employer satisfied the officer that its stated reasons were "the actual and only reasons," and that the act of compliance did not taint the decision.
Specific gaps in the file mattered. The worker disputed the alleged misconduct. He noted that the employer first raised communication failures on February 22, 2021, his first day back after the injury, and that an alleged unsafe act on August 18 was not raised until August 31. The employer issued a performance improvement plan on September 17 without mentioning alleged unsafe conduct on September 15 and 16, then terminated him days later, before he could comply. The board described the lack of scrutiny as "particularly glaring" around the August 18 allegation, which the report never identified.
The board granted the appeal and remitted the complaint for reconsideration, upholding two other findings.
What it means for employers
Any employer that disciplines a worker after an injury report is working against a presumption. Section 19(10) places the burden on the employer, and this decision shows that officers are expected to interrogate the reasons on file rather than simply record them.
That puts weight on a few practical things. Concerns about a worker's conduct that exist before an injury should already be written down, with dates and specifics, rather than assembled after the fact. Return-to-work and medical accommodation decisions should be handled separately from performance discipline. The worker should be told exactly what conduct is at issue and have a real chance to respond. A performance improvement plan followed days later by termination will not read as progressive discipline to anyone reviewing the file.
Your health and safety program is where the procedure belongs: how concerns are documented, who reviews a decision to discipline a worker who has reported an injury, and how return-to-work fits alongside it.
Salient helps Alberta construction and trades employers build the procedures and records that hold up when a complaint is filed. Our OHS program development service covers discipline, return-to-work and complaint handling inside a working safety program, and our safety consulting team can review what your supervisors are documenting now. Book a free discovery call to talk it through.
Frequently asked questions
What does section 18 of Alberta's OHS Act prohibit?
Section 18 prohibits disciplinary action against a worker for complying with the Act. A worker who reports a workplace injury and is then disciplined can file a complaint, and an OHS officer investigates it. In this case the complaint covered warnings, a five-day unpaid suspension, a performance improvement plan and termination.
What is the reverse onus under section 19(10)?
Section 19(10) presumes that discipline imposed after a worker's compliance with the Act was motivated by that compliance. That means the employer has to prove otherwise, and the officer must be satisfied the stated reasons were the actual and only reasons and that the compliance did not taint the decision.
What should an employer document before disciplining a worker who has reported an injury?
Concerns that exist before an injury should be written down with dates and specifics, rather than assembled after the fact. Return-to-work and medical accommodation decisions should be handled separately from performance discipline, the worker should be told exactly what conduct is at issue, and they should have a real chance to respond.