Pillar Fabricators

Very well managed, established shop. Good management, supervision, and crew all around.

This place violates peoples human rightsHough v Pillar Resource Services Inc., 2021 AHRC 121Access Full Decision HereDate Issued: June 1, 2021The Complainant in this matter, Mr. Greg Hough, claimed that the co-Respondent, Pillar Resources Services Inc. (“Pillar”), discriminated against him contrary to s. 7 of the Alberta Human Rights Act (the “Act”) on the grounds of physical disability. Section 7 stipulates that an employer shall not refuse to employ, or refuse to continue employing, a person due to their disability. Section 7 also states that an employer shall not discriminate against a person with a disability during the course of their employment. Mr. Hough was employed by Pillar as a pipefitter and suffered a work-related injury that required accommodated duties for the duration of his recovery. Pillar provided the accommodated duties and subsequently terminated Mr. Hough’s employment once he returned to his full duties.Mr. Hough put forward three claims against Pillar:That Pillar required that he perform duties outside of his medical accommodations, and in doing so, he was further injured (“Complaint 1”)That Pillar harassed Mr. Hough during his period of accommodated duties (“Complaint 2”)That Mr. Hough’s injury was a factor in his termination from Pillar (“Complaint 3”)The Tribunal was tasked with addressing the following matters:Whether the Respondent discriminated against the Complainant by requiring him to perform duties outside of his medical restrictions?Whether the Respondent discriminated against the Complainant by harassing him during his modified duties?Whether the Respondent discriminated against the Complainant in his termination?What the appropriate remedy should be if discrimination were established?The burden is on the Complainant to provide evidence that would establish their claim. This is done on a balance of probabilities. The Tribunal outlined that the Complainant must satisfy the legal test from the Supreme Court of Canada decisionMoore v British Columbia (Education) (“Moore”) to establish discrimination, which showed that the complainant had a protected ground, suffered an adverse impact, and that the Complainant’s protected ground was a factor in the adverse impact (Moore, para 33). The Moore test also analyzes whether the discrimination was justified. Section. 11 of the Act finds no discrimination occurred if a breach was reasonable and justified in the circumstances.The Tribunal analyzed Mr. Hough’s claim through the Moore test and found that there was no discrimination on Complaint 1, as the evidence did not support a finding of discrimination. The Tribunal believed that Mr. Hough’s modified duties accommodated his work injury, and he was not forced to engage in full duties. However, the Tribunal found that there was discrimination on Complaint 2 and 3.The Tribunal found that Mr. Hough experienced harassment as a form of inappropriate discipline. Pillar imposed various discipline practices that were not appropriate, justified and/or were disproportionate. The Tribunal noted that the evidence provided by Mr. Hough’s showed that the disciplinary actions were not justified or proportionate to the action requiring disciplinary measures that they stemmed partly from frustration surrounding Mr. Hough’s need for accommodated duties. Various disciplinary measures were used that amounted to harassment included docking Mr. Hough’s pay, suspension for valid absenteeism relating to his disability and legitimate medical reasons, as well as writing inaccurate information on his disciplinary record. The Tribunal found that the evidence upheld Mr. Hough’s claim of harassment on Complaint 2 and that there was discrimination on the protected ground of physical disability.

Great people to deal with. Very professional

Have worked here for 10 years. Great company to work for. Highly recommend!

Oilfield Fabrication Company. Appt required to come in (covid).

Great people with professionalism..