Messy paperwork almost cost this employer its discrimination defence
A cement manufacturer kept undated, unsigned and out-of-order employee files. A human rights tribunal found that did not amount to evidence of racial bias. A probationary millwright's discrimination complaint over missing keys, a broken swipe card and an early performance review has been dismissed.
In a decision dated July 17, 2026, Tribunal Member Edward Takayanagi of the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal dismissed a race discrimination complaint filed by a former millwright against Heidelberg Materials, a cement, concrete and asphalt manufacturer, finding the company terminated the worker during his probationary period over genuine performance concerns, not his race, ancestry, colour or place of origin.
A pattern of exclusion, or standard practice for new hires?
The worker, an immigrant from China with a background in mechanical engineering and a Red Seal certification, joined Heidelberg as a millwright on September 9, 2019. He testified that he alone was denied a radio, a key to the tool room and a functioning swipe card for safety equipment, and said he believed the omissions were connected to his race.
Heidelberg denied singling him out. Supervisors testified that radios go only to production staff, first-aid workers and senior millwrights on walkaround patrols, and that tool room keys are withheld from all probationary hires. Managers said the swipe-card vending machine for safety gear malfunctioned for many employees, not just the worker, which was why a backup supply counter existed nearby.
Takayanagi wrote that discrimination based on race "is frequently subtle," noting that racialized complainants often struggle to prove bias when no one states it openly. Even so, the tribunal found no evidentiary basis, beyond the worker's own belief, to conclude he had been treated differently from his colleagues because of his race.
A performance review lands earlier than expected
On October 10, 2019, before his 600-hour probation was complete, the worker underwent an interim review at the 200-hour mark. He testified that no one had warned him such reviews existed and said he was the only employee subjected to one, though he acknowledged supervisors did tell him his welding needed to be faster.
Heidelberg's HR staff testified interim reviews had been standard practice since April 2018, applied to every millwright hired afterward, including the one coworker hired in that window who also received one. Employment records showed four of the five colleagues the worker cited had, in fact, been hired before the policy began.
The paper trail itself was not tidy. Supervisors testified that some performance notes went undated or unsigned, and that they sometimes failed to share reviews with employees or file them with HR promptly. Takayanagi did not treat the gaps as suspicious, finding they were "more plausibly explained by a busy workplace that had haphazard record keeping" than by any hidden motive, and accepted that the timing of the review had nothing to do with the worker's race.
When workplace friction turns into a firing
Supervisors documented a string of complaints in the weeks that followed: a welded patch made from several small scraps of metal instead of one large piece, a report of debris thrown from a tower, worn pulleys pushed by hand instead of moved by forklift, trouble operating a blow torch, and reluctance to help with dusty jobs. The worker said missing materials, faulty equipment or misunderstandings were to blame each time.
A mechanic who had thrown debris from the tower alongside the worker later testified he never disclosed his own role and let colleagues believe the worker alone was responsible. Takayanagi found Heidelberg still had a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason to note the incident, since supervisors were acting on the mechanic's account, not any racial assumption.
Takayanagi concluded that no single incident sealed the worker's fate, but that the accumulation of concerns about his speed, efficiency and judgment gave Heidelberg a genuine basis for dissatisfaction. The tribunal was not persuaded that any inference of racial discrimination was more probable than Heidelberg's business explanation, and dismissed the complaint in its entirety.
