Newsletters

219

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.

219

Articles in the same category

Same Approach, Same Result… Yet Again!

Last June, we published a newsletter following the decision rendered in Michel Grenier v. Me Julie Charbonneau, Roger Picard and Conseil de discipline de l’Ordre des psychologues du Québec. This decision followed the filing by the Defendants of Motions to Dismiss, which were granted by the judge of the Superior court. At the time the […]

Is Planned Obsolescence Finally Coming to an End on October 5, 2025?

While a dishwasher from the 1980s can still run smoothly, many newer models seem to break down after just a few cycles! The 2023 adoption of the Act to Protect Consumers Against Planned Obsolescence and to Promote the Durability, Repairability and Maintenance of Goods1 (hereinafter the “Anti-Obsolescence Act“), which modified the Consumer Protection Act2 (the “C.P.A.“), aimed […]

Caution Regarding Appeal Deadlines in Bankruptcy and Insolvency Matters!

In its recent decision in Syndic de Bopack inc. (2025 QCCA 909), the Quebec Court of Appeal reaffirmed the principle that, in matters governed by the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the deadline for filing a notice of appeal is ten days from the date of the judgment. This principle is particularly important to bear in mind, as in […]

Who Must Be Represented by a Lawyer? Beware of Sanctions!

In civil matters, self-represented litigants are increasingly common before the Quebec courts. This possibility is expressly provided for in article 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“C.C.P.”), which allows any person to be self-represented. However, this right is subject to several exceptions outlined in article 87 C.C.P., which provides mandatory legal representation in certain […]

Latent and Costly Defects

Can buyers of a property with latent defects resell it and claim from their seller the difference between the two transactions? This is one of the questions addressed by the Superior Court in Ouellette c. Blais, 2024 QCCS 1025, upheld by the Court of Appeal on May 26, 2025. The Facts: Charmed by a large […]

If it is Excluded, No Obligation to Defend Rules the Court of Appeal

The Québec Court of Appeal has just issued an important decision for the insurance industry: Intact Insurance Company v. Hydromec Inc., 2025 QCCA 803, overturning a Wellington-type order that had been granted at first instance. A quick reminder: a Wellington motion allows an insured to compel their insurer to take up their defense as soon […]