Who Says Whistleblower Protections Don't Work?

In 2005, the Supreme Court of Canada had its first opportunity to interpret a workplace whistleblower law.  It took the opportunity to signal to the business community that courts will give broad and liberal meaning to such statutory protections.

A Saskatchewan employee of the Iron Workers Union alleged she was fired from her job as bookkeeper and office manager of Ironworkers Local 771 because she “blew the whistle” on financial abuses committed by her immediate supervisors (including the union local’s president).

The employee relied upon the protection provided by Saskatchewan’s Labour Standards Act.  That statute prohibits employers from dismissing an employee who “has reported or proposed to report to a lawful authority any activity that is or is likely to result in an offence”.

The resulting decision by our top court, in favour of the employee, represented a significant blow for the protection of workers.  Most provincial and federal employment-related statutes now contain some form of whistle-blower protection. 

In British Columbia, for instance, the Labour Relations Code, Employment Standards Act, Human Rights Code, and Workers Compensation Act all contain a variation of whistle-blower protection.  A recent instance, arising out of B.C.’s Workers Compensation Act demonstrates that whistleblower protections continue to have force.

Colin Henthorne has been reinstated to his job by WorkSafeBC after it determined that he was fired for raising safety concerns.  Henthorne was the captain of the B.C. Ferries vessel, Queen of the North, which sank in western coastal waters, killing two passengers.

Henthorne was the captain in charge of the vessel when it sank on March 22, 2006.  He wasn’t, however, present on the bridge at the time of the accident.

After the tragedy, Henthorne raised occupational health and safety concerns relating to B.C. Ferries’ operations.  Several members of the Queen of the North’s bridge crew, including Henthorne, were fired in the aftermath.

Henthorne complained to WorkSafeBC that B.C. Ferries discriminated against him by firing him for reporting health and safety concerns.  In the workers compensation context, discriminatory action refers to adverse consequences imposed on an employee for (among other things) giving “any information regarding conditions affecting the occupational health or safety or occupational environment” to:

(i)    an employer or person acting on behalf of an employer,
(ii)    another worker or a union representing a worker, or
(iii)    an officer or any other person concerned with the administration of the Workers Compensation Act.

WorkSafeBC has determined, in an unpublished decision, that Henthorne was fired (in part) because of the safety concerns he had raised.  In addition to the reinstatement of his employment, Henthorne will also receive lost wages and benefits.

It’s surely been a long haul for Henthorne, but he will certainly be pleased at having been vindicated.  The rest of us can be pleased we live in a province in which employees enjoy the protection of the law in such situations.