The Manitoba Labour Board has ordered Alternative Landscaping Ltd. to pay $2,000 to an employee whose insistence on proper overtime compensation contributed to their dismissal.
In a corrected decision dated July 20, 2026, the board found that the company committed an unfair labour practice by terminating the employee, identified in the public reasons as R.E. The employee uses they/them pronouns.
The result was not a full damages victory. The board rejected a separate claim for lost income and other employment losses, finding the evidence insufficient to justify that compensation.
Overtime dispute was part of the dismissal
The employee's agreement provided for overtime to be banked as an equal amount of time off. The company admitted that this was incorrect and that the hours should have been credited at one and a half times the overtime worked.
The board also found that the employee had been required to work overtime. It rejected the employer's position that the hours were not mandatory, pointing to staffing shortages, additional duties and management's scheduling expectations.
The events leading to the dismissal centred on the employee's refusal to work extra hours without the proper compensation. On Nov. 26, 2025, they told a manager they would work overtime if it was credited correctly and suggested contacting Employment Standards together to confirm the rules.
Management then confirmed that the employee did not have to work the extra hours. The company argued that this resolved the overtime issue before the dismissal and that the termination instead resulted from performance problems and the employee's resistance to management.
The board was not persuaded that the matters could be separated so neatly. The employee was disciplined for a dress-code issue that day and then dismissed. The board found the discipline was itself more likely than not a response to the employee's stand on overtime.
It acknowledged that the employee's performance had not been perfect and that the employer had documented concerns. But a subsequent review had recorded improvement, and the board heard no evidence of further performance problems in the month before the dismissal.
A prohibited reason need not be the only reason
The board applied section 7 of The Labour Relations Act, which protects employees against specified employment consequences for exercising statutory rights.
Once the employee established an arguable link between their protected activity and dismissal, the employer had to show that the decision was not motivated in any way by that activity. The board explained that an improper motive need not be the sole or principal reason for a termination.
Here, asserting overtime rights was at least one reason for the dismissal. The board did not find it was the employer's only reason. It also emphasized that its jurisdiction under section 7 was not a general power to decide whether every dismissal or performance assessment was unfair.
Compensation limited by the evidence
The employee sought both the $2,000 unfair-labour-practice award and compensation for additional losses.
They presented evidence of applications for more than 40 jobs by April 2026. The board described the later job-search efforts as commendable, but found insufficient evidence of reasonable efforts to reduce income losses during the period immediately following the November dismissal. It also found the evidence of other claimed losses inadequate.
The board therefore declined compensation under section 31(4)(d), while ordering the $2,000 payment under section 31(4)(e).
The decision establishes the board's findings and order, not that payment has since been made. The official records checked for this report did not establish a later court outcome or compliance with the award.
