Case Study: Tyesha Heron v Amazon Canada: Navigating Work Refusals and Reprisal Claims

Background

Tyesha Heron was employed as an Associate at Amazon’s YHM1 Fulfillment Centre in Hamilton. In early 2024, she engaged in a work refusal under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA), claiming unsafe conditions due to high temperatures at her assigned work station.

Shortly afterward, Amazon terminated her employment, prompting Ms. Heron to claim that her termination was a reprisal for exercising her OHSA rights. The central legal question was whether Amazon’s termination decision was tainted by her exercise of statutory rights under the OHSA.

Facts

1. Employment and Discipline History:
   • Ms. Heron began at Amazon on September 8, 2022.
   • She had multiple prior warnings for behavioural, attendance, and safety-related issues:
     • June 17, 2023: first behavioural warning (insubordination and cellphone use).
     • July 3, 2023: final behavioural warning (attendance issues).
     • October 5, 2023: safety violation (throwing totes).
     • January 31, 2024: quality warning (work quality issues).
   • She also had two prior security screening incidents in March 2023.
2. Culminating Security Incident (Feb 27, 2024):
   • Ms. Heron refused to put her jacket through a metal detector or x-ray machine as required by Amazon’s security policies.
   • Security staff instructed her to comply, but she refused, violating the Security Standards of Conduct Policy.
3. Work Refusal (Mar 8, 2024):
   • Ms. Heron refused to work at a hot work station citing unsafe temperature conditions.
   • The refusal was investigated by Amazon’s Workplace Health and Safety Manager and a Ministry of Labour inspector, who determined the conditions were safe.
   • Importantly, HR and management involved in the termination decision were not aware of this work refusal.
4. Termination Decision (Mar 28, 2024):
   • Management, after reviewing Ms. Heron’s cumulative behavioural and security violations, decided that termination was appropriate.
   • Termination was confirmed in writing on March 30, 2024.

Legal Framework

Section 50 of the OHSA (Anti-Reprisal Provision):

• Employers cannot discipline or terminate employees because they exercised rights under the Act.
• The onus of proof lies on the employer to show, on a balance of probabilities, that the employee’s exercise of OHSA rights did not influence the termination decision.

Board’s Analysis

1. Causal Connection:
   • The Board emphasized that the alleged reprisal must be directly related to the exercise of OHSA rights.
   • Amazon demonstrated that the termination was based solely on policy violations and prior progressive discipline.
   • The timing of the investigation and termination, though seemingly close to the work refusal, was explained as routine and unrelated to OHSA activity.
2. Progressive Discipline:
   • The Board considered Amazon’s documented warnings and HR policies.
   • The “Category 1 infraction” classification for the security violation warranted termination based on prior warnings.
3. Work Refusal Evidence:
   • The HR and management team responsible for the termination were not involved in the work refusal investigation.
   • No evidence suggested that Ms. Heron’s exercise of OHSA rights influenced the termination decision.

Decision

• The Board dismissed Ms. Heron’s application.
• Conclusion: Termination was not a reprisal under OHSA because it was based entirely on legitimate disciplinary and security policy violations.

Key Takeaways for Employers

1. Document All Policy Violations:
   • Maintain clear, progressive disciplinary records for behavioural, attendance, safety, and security infractions.
   • Documentation should be factual, dated, and consistent with company policy.
2. Separate Safety Concerns from Discipline:
   • Investigate safety complaints (work refusals) independently of disciplinary actions.
   • Ensure managers deciding on terminations are not influenced by employees exercising statutory rights.
3. Communicate Policies Clearly:
   • Employees should understand security, safety, and behavioural policies.
   • Warnings and infractions must explicitly reference policy violations.
4. Timing Alone Doesn’t Imply Reprisal:
   • Employers can terminate employees after statutory rights are exercised, as long as the decision is based on legitimate reasons unrelated to the exercise of rights.
   • Keep records to demonstrate independence of disciplinary actions from OHSA complaints.
5. Consistency Is Key:
   • Apply discipline and termination rules uniformly across all employees.
   • Inconsistent enforcement can give rise to perceived or actual claims of reprisal.

This recent Ontario Labour Relations Board decision highlights the importance of separating workplace discipline from employee health and safety rights. The ruling underscores that employers must maintain clear, documented policies and ensure that any disciplinary action is strictly tied to policy violations, not employee rights under health and safety legislation.

HRC Tip: Are you struggling with a thorny employee situation? Our advisory team is here to help guide you through. Contact us and we can provide you with suggestions and recommendations. 

Source: 2025 CanLII 67097 (ON LRB) | Tyesha Heron v Amazon Canada Fulfillment Services | CanLII