(Montreal) An employee who stubbornly refused to wear a mask at work, after the announcement of a government decree to deal with COVID, and who had filed a complaint in court, alleging that he had been fired because of an absence for disease, has just lost his case.
Posted at 12:04 p.m.
The Administrative Labor Tribunal ruled that it was rather his aggressive, belligerent, disrespectful behavior, his insubordination, his intimidating remarks that led to his being fired, and not his absence due to illness.
Hired as a packer, the man had opposed wearing a face covering as soon as the government decree imposing it was announced in April 2021.
The next day, he went to a walk-in medical clinic and gave his employer a medical certificate attesting to his inability to work until he could meet his attending physician.
However, while he was off work, he went to the rest room and filmed his colleagues with his cell phone. He had maintained that he was going to “save his colleagues”, relates the Court.
A few days later, he submitted a new medical certificate stating that he was fit to return to work subject to certain restrictions. But these restrictions were not specified.
The employer had tried in vain to find out more about these restrictions.
The tone had risen, the employee had made aggressive remarks towards the human resources adviser, shouting.
He had also presented himself at the office of his supervisor, without a mask, aggressive. He had asked her to leave immediately. The man held up his medical certificate in front of the supervisor. A “lively altercation” ensued, reports the Tribunal. The employee had shouted near the face of his supervisor, without a mask. The supervisor had pushed him away; the two men had jostled each other.
The employee had filed a complaint with the police against his supervisor, following this altercation. Informed of this complaint, the supervisor had filed a complaint in turn. The two complaints were ultimately not followed up and no charges had been brought against either of the two men, reports the Tribunal.
In its decision, the Tribunal recalls that an employee who alleges functional restrictions to carry out his work must inform his employer of the nature of these — which the employee refused to do, on the pretext that he had no to provide the requested medical information.
“He is stubborn, stubbornly refuses to wear a face covering without medical justification, placing the employer in a dead end,” writes administrative judge Line Lanseigne.
“Added to this insubordination is reprehensible conduct. The Court holds that the complainant showed up unexpectedly in the rest room, without a face covering, that he made intimidating remarks there and that he filmed his colleagues without authorization, ”she adds. She also remembers the fact that he was the instigator of the altercation with his supervisor.
For his part, the employee had pleaded that he was the victim of hostile acts.
The Court ruled that it was rather “his untimely, belligerent behavior” which “deteriorated the working climate and disrupted the operation of the company”.
“There is no doubt that the Complainant’s conduct was unacceptable. It is therefore his faulty conduct as well as his insubordination which are the real reasons for his dismissal and not his absence due to illness,” he concludes. His complaint was therefore dismissed.