Newsletters

301

COVID-19 and Amazon: You Are Fired! — Health and Safety in the Workplace vs The Right of Association

In case you missed it, it was reported in the news that on March 30, 2020, Amazon had fired a New York warehouse worker who had led a walkout on the same day over coronavirus concerns.

The stance of Amazon is that the worker, Chris Smalls, had been ordered to quarantine at home with pay for 14 days as he had been in close contact with a co-worker who was declared positive to the virus. Despite such instructions, the worker came on site and further put the teams at risk. Amazon immediately terminated the worker citing multiple safety issues. Amazon also affirmed that the company takes extreme measures for safety.

The worker believes he was directly targeted by his employer because he had stood for the workers and tried to give them a voice. The ‘’strikers’’ had demanded a temporary shutdown of the facility for Amazon to proceed to a deep-cleaning and they had also requested protective equipment and hazard pay because of the outbreak.

Supporters of the protest reportedly viewed the termination as a tactic of intimidation and retaliation for the walkout.

This would not end there. The New York Attorney General has issued a formal statement by which she calls the termination as disgraceful and has called the National Labor Relations Board to investigate the incident. New York’s mayor Bill de Blasio has called the city’s commissioner for human rights to investigate.

This story is very interesting as it opposes, from a Quebec perspective, the obligation on the employer to provide a safe workplace, which is of the utmost importance in these times, to the constitutional rights of association and free speech of the workers. Where the employer must take extreme measures to protect the health of its workers and must act swiftly to do so to prevent the spreading of the virus, the workers also have a right to organize and voice their concerns over health and safety in the workplace.

Under Quebec’s Act respecting occupational health and safety, an employer must take the necessary measures to protect the health and ensure the safety and physical well-being of his workers. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, organizational changes are required to fulfill this obligation.

A worker also has the right to refuse to perform particular work if he has reasonable grounds to believe that the performance of that work would expose him to danger to his health, safety or physical well-being, or would expose another person to a similar danger. Disputes between the employee and employer on the exercise of that right will be decided by an inspector from the CNESST. The worker can also file a complaint with the CNESST or notify it of a hazardous situation. The employer’s obligation to ensure that all occupational health and safety measures are taken on its premises is therefore crucial to avoid such consequences.

RSS’s Labour and Employment Law Group can help you ascertain whether you abide by the relevant governmental rules and advise you on occupational health and safety issues generally.

301

Articles in the same category

Ruin Finds a Reason

In Société d’assurance Beneva Inc. c. Ville de Sherbrooke, 2026 QCCA 1301, the Court of Appeal delivers a decision as concise as it is compelling on liability arising from the ruin of an immovable, in a case involving the rupture of a water main. Its impact could extend well beyond underground pipe failures. The Facts […]

There Is No Point in Submitting a Bid Without Conducting Your Research First

In 9329-0146 Québec Inc. (M. Potvin Excavation) v. City of Saint-Constant, 2026 QCCA 1199, the Quebec Court of Appeal reaffirmed the principles governing a contracting authority’s duty to provide information and a bidder’s corresponding duty to seek clarification where necessary. The Facts  In May 2020, the City of Saint-Constant issued a public call for bids […]

2026 World Cup: FIFA Can Commercialise the Tournament, But Not Trust

Introduction With 48 teams, 104 matches, three host countries and 39 days of competition, the 2026 World Cup was already destined to make history because of its sheer scale. On the field, with a transformed VAR system (Video Assistant Referee) and FIFA’s new regulations, every player action was subjected to microscopic scrutiny. Off the field, […]

An Insurer Is Not Required to Uncover What the Insured Was Required to Disclose

In Kayembe-Kabeya v. Industrielle Alliance, assurance et services financiers inc., 2026 QCCS 1714, the Superior Court sets the record straight on the principle of contractual “utmost good faith”. The Facts In September 2019, Ms. Ricady Mede (hereinafter “Mede”) purchased a life insurance policy from Industrielle Alliance (hereinafter the “Insurer”). A few months later, she died of […]

When it’s too late for latent defects…

The Superior Court recently rendered a judgment in Reinert v. Construction Maurice Bilodeau Inc., 2026 QCCS 2276, dealing with timeliness to give notice in cases of latent defects. The Facts In 2013, Ms. Sylvie Reinert and Mr. Denis Leclerc retained Construction Maurice Bilodeau Inc. (“CMB”) for the construction of a residential building on a vacant lot in Lévis. […]

Insurance Math: One Claim, Two Fires, Three Points of Origin, Zero Recovery: When Circumstantial Evidence Speaks Louder Than a Confession

In Chatel v. Desjardins Insurance, 2026 QCCS 712, the Quebec Superior Court reaffirmed a principle of insurance law: direct evidence is not required to establish an intentional fault. Mr. Chatel claimed $532,000 under his homeowner’s insurance policy following two fires that occurred four days apart. The first caused partial damage to his residence, while the second […]