Worker argues HR 'had no plan to deal' with employer's issues
The Appeals Commission for Alberta Workers' Compensation recently dealt with a case involving a worker's claim for a psychological injury.
The worker, an assistant branch manager, submitted a claim for a psychological injury, which was denied by the Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) and later by the Dispute Resolution and Decision Review Body (DRDRB). The worker then appealed the decision to the Appeals Commission.
In this case, the worker alleged that he suffered from a psychological injury due to a hostile work environment created by his manager and a co-worker.
The worker claimed that beginning in November or December 2021, there were numerous emotional and psychological events involving the branch manager that culminated in the worker being taken to the hospital with anxiety, depression, and suicidal thoughts.
The central question was whether the worker had an acceptable WCB claim for a psychological injury. To determine this, the Appeals Commission had to consider if the worker's condition met the criteria for a chronic onset psychological injury as outlined in WCB policies.
Background and WCB policy
The worker submitted a Worker Report of Injury on May 16, 2022, recording a date of accident of April 11, 2022. The WCB denied the worker's claim for both traumatic onset and chronic onset psychological injuries on January 17, 2023.
The worker's representative submitted a request for review of the decision, but a WCB supervisor upheld the denial on March 24, 2023. The matter then proceeded to the DRDRB.
According to WCB Policy 03-01, Part II, Application 6, Question 7, for a claim of chronic onset psychological injury to be accepted, the following criteria must be met:
The DRDRB had already determined that the worker met the first two criteria. Therefore, the Appeals Commission focused on whether the work-related events were excessive or unusual and if there was objective confirmation of the events.
Worker's evidence and arguments
The worker told the panel that “he worked in a toxic environment and the employer’s human resources had no plan to deal with this environment even when they were responsible for employee health and safety.”
The worker said he was terminated “when he asked for help with his work and emotional circumstances. He said that he “continues to deal with anxiety because of the workplace events.”
The representative presented several pieces of evidence to support the claim, including:
The worker testified that he had no history of mental illness and that the hostile work environment and subsequent termination had profoundly affected his mental health. He continued to seek counselling and was on medication for ongoing anxiety.
Employer's arguments
The employer agreed with the DRDRB's decision to deny the worker's claim, arguing that the examples provided by the worker's representative did not constitute objective confirmation of the alleged events.
The employer maintained that the events described were normal “pressures” and “tensions” found in ordinary circumstances.
It added that “the duties reasonably expected by nature of the worker’s occupation are considered a normal part of employment.”
Appeals Commission's analysis and decision
The Appeals Commission considered the evidence presented by the worker's representative but concluded that there was no objective confirmation of the alleged events. Regarding the audio recording, the panel noted:
"While there is audible tension in the manager's voice, she is not yelling or screaming. At one point we could hear her swearing in context to herself and not at the worker. The discussion in and of itself does not reasonably rise to bullying or harassment as defined in policy as an intention to intimidate, offend, degrade, or humiliate the worker."
Similarly, the text message and the SIU report's confidential witness statement were not considered compelling objective confirmation due to the lack of context and the inability to confirm the exact nature of the interactions between the worker and the manager.
Furthermore, the Appeals Commission noted that the worker's own statements and those of the manager suggested a personal relationship existed between them outside of the workplace.
The panel found that a significant portion of the worker's allegations and conflict were directed at the co-worker and the co-worker's personal relationship with the manager, which was outside the intent of WCB policy for acceptance of a workplace psychological injury.
In its decision, the Appeals Commission stated:
"In view of the foregoing analysis, we find there is no objective confirmation of the events alleged by the worker."
As a result, the worker did not meet all the required policy criteria for a chronic onset psychological injury. The Appeals Commission concluded:
"The worker does not have an acceptable Workers' Compensation Board claim for a psychological injury. The appeal is denied. The August 8, 2023, decision of the Dispute Resolution and Decision Review Body is confirmed."
This case highlights the importance of providing objective confirmation of events when claiming a work-related psychological injury. Without such confirmation, even if other criteria are met, the claim may not be accepted by the WCB or upheld on appeal.
The decision also emphasises the need for alleged events to meet the policy definition of bullying or harassment and for the claim to be based on work-related factors rather than personal relationships outside the workplace.
