Mental health accommodation hits limits when employee threatens to kill coworkers
A British Columbia sawmill worker's termination for uttering a workplace death threat was upheld by an arbitrator, even though the employer had previously accommodated his mental health condition through an extensive return-to-work agreement with psychiatric monitoring and weekly check-ins.
Arbitrator Randall J. Noonan ruled Jan. 2, 2026, that West Fraser Mills' decision to dismiss Clayton Kinder was not excessive, despite Kinder's 13-year service record and the employer's significant accommodation efforts following a 2022 mental health crisis.
The case turned on whether Kinder made the comment "I could kill people in the sawmill" to a new employee he was training on Jan. 30, 2024. Kinder categorically denied making any such statement throughout two investigation meetings and at the arbitration hearing.
When accommodation meets workplace safety
The incident occurred during Kinder's first interaction with Tristen Owen, a recently hired employee assigned to work the planer bins. Owen testified that after he told Kinder he had already been trained on bins in the sawmill, Kinder's mood "shifted" and he made the threatening comment. Owen reported feeling unsafe and asked to be reassigned.
Kinder had no prior relationship with Owen. The two had never worked together before that morning and had no interaction outside the workplace. Owen testified the comment was "clear as day" despite suggestions that protective earmuffs could have caused a misunderstanding.
The employer conducted immediate interviews with both employees. Management then met with Kinder on Jan. 31, 2024. According to contemporaneous meeting notes, the general manager asked Kinder "specifically if he threatened to kill someone in the sawmill." Kinder responded: "No, I never said that."
The shadow of past conduct
In June 2022, Kinder had made similar comments to a supervisor about "how easy it would be to kill" someone and played what he described as his "new favourite song" which was about suicide. The employer did not discipline him at that time, determining the comments were related to a mental health condition. Kinder was subsequently certified under the Mental Health Act and went on extended medical leave.
Before returning to work, Kinder signed a detailed Return-to-Work Agreement in February 2023 requiring weekly counselling sessions, monthly physician check-ins, regular blood draws to monitor medication levels, and permanent restriction from graveyard shifts. The agreement specifically stated Kinder "must ensure that his conduct and comments are appropriate, respectful and non-threatening."
The agreement warned that "any breach of the terms of this Return to Work Agreement will result in Kinder being removed from the workplace." All parties, including the union, signed the document.
Why the dismissal stood
Noonan found Owen's testimony credible, noting Owen was a new employee being trained that day who had nothing to gain by making an allegation against Kinder. The arbitrator rejected suggestions that Owen misheard the comment, noting both men recalled having a clear discussion about other job duties that same morning.
Critically, Kinder never accepted responsibility or apologized. The arbitrator cited established precedent: "In the case of threatening behavior, the lack of a timely apology is an aggravating factor because in the absence of an apology, the perception of the threat continues to linger."
The decision reinforced that employers' duty to maintain safe workplaces can override accommodation obligations when serious threats occur. One superintendent testified that the work environment is a safety-sensitive one in which it would be very easy to hurt or kill people, making such threats particularly concerning in that context.
See West Fraser Mills (100 Mile Lumber) v United Steelworkers, Local 1-2017
