In Merk v. International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers, Local 771 (November 11, 2005), the Supreme Court of Canada adopted a broad interpretation of the whistle-blower protection provision of the Saskatchewan Labour Standards Act.
Merk was the bookkeeper and office manager employed by Local 771 of the International Union of Iron Workers. She reported to her supervisor, the local’s business manager, that he and the local union president were double charging expenses by putting them on the union credit card (paid directly by Local 771) after having already received advances for the same expenses, or claiming reimbursement as though they had been paid out of pocket.
Merk was not satisfied with the response that she received. Ultimately, she contacted the General President of the International Union, and he assigned a union investigator. The investigator spoke with Merk and others and concluded that the Local 771 by-laws did not specifically prohibit collecting more than once for the same expenses. Following this, Merk’s employment was terminated.Merk alleged that she was terminated because she blew the whistle on the business manager and local president, and that her termination violated the anti-reprisal provision of the Saskatchewan Labour Standards Act. Section 74 of that statute, which has since been amended, provided that “no employer shall discharge...an employee because the employee has reported...to a lawful authority any activity that is or is likely to result in an offence pursuant to an Act or an Act of the Parliament of Canada.”
At trial, the judge concluded that Merk “certainly was terminated because of her pursuit of the issue of [the business manager’s] expenses through the union. Once it appeared to [him] that the union’s investigation cleared him, he felt safe to fire her.” Furthermore, the trial judge found that the alleged misconduct qualified as an “activity that is or is likely to result in an offence pursuant to an Act or an Act of the Parliament of Canada.” Nevertheless, the trial judge concluded that section 74 had not been violated because Merk had not complained to a “lawful authority.”
Relying on the trial judge%u20