A gust of wind moves through the scaffolding as a supervisor notices a worker step onto a platform without a harness. It isn't the first time. The site's "three-strike" policy says this is the last warning, but firing a skilled tradesperson mid-project will slow production. The supervisor hesitates. 

That moment of hesitation captures one of the most difficult leadership challenges in occupational health and safety: how to hold people accountable for safety rules without undermining morale, fairness, or trust. 

Across Canada, employers are re-examining discipline policies to find the right balance between consistency and compassion. Regulators expect evidence of enforcement; employees expect to be treated justly. Between those two expectations lies the space where safety culture either grows or collapses. 

Why Constructive Discipline Matters 

Constructive discipline is a deliberate, structured process intended to correct behaviour, not punish it. It exists to change habits and reinforce expectations, while punitive discipline often relies on fear or frustration. 

Every Canadian OHS statute requires employers to take all reasonable precautions to protect workers. That obligation does not end when an employee chooses to ignore a rule. If supervisors repeatedly tolerate unsafe behaviour, inspectors view the entire system as negligent. 

The legal principle was cemented in R. v. Wyssen (1992 ONCJ). A construction foreman ignored repeated fall-protection violations by a worker who later fell to his death. The employer argued that written policies proved diligence. The court disagreed, finding that the company's failure to enforce its own rules defeated any defence. The decision remains a cornerstone of Canadian OHS law: diligence is measured by enforcement, not paperwork. 

The message from Wyssen still guides inspectors today. Written procedures mean little unless supervisors act on them, document the response, and show that workers were coached, warned, and, if necessary, removed from work until compliance improves. 

Constructive discipline therefore protects both people and the organization. It prevents injuries by reinforcing standards and provides evidence of diligence if something goes wrong. 

The "Three-Strike" Model — Fair or Flawed? 

Many organizations rely on a simple model: first offence, verbal warning; second, written warning; third, termination. The logic is appealing. It sets clear boundaries and gives workers multiple chances to improve. 

Yet applied mechanically, it can undermine both fairness and effectiveness. Real workplaces are complex. Some infractions are minor; others are life-threatening. Some are unintentional; others deliberate. A rigid rule cannot account for those differences. 

Arbitrators frequently overturn "automatic" dismissals when the employer cannot prove that each step in the process included meaningful communication and retraining. In contrast, terminations for serious or willful safety breaches are usually upheld even without prior warnings because the risk to life is immediate. 

A 2023 review of Ontario arbitration summaries found that more than 40 percent of discipline cases involving safety infractions were modified or overturned because the employer applied policy too rigidly or inconsistently. 

The best systems combine structure with judgment. They are transparent, documented, and consistently applied, but they allow decision-makers to weigh intent, risk, and history. 

Leadership Consistency and Credibility 

Workers watch what leaders do more than what they say. When supervisors ignore small violations, employees conclude that rules are flexible. When managers bypass PPE because it is uncomfortable or inconvenient, they give silent permission for others to do the same. 

Consistency is the foundation of credibility. Constructive discipline works only when leaders model the same standards they enforce. 

Supervisors often feel caught between production and protection. Schedules tighten, clients pressure for completion, and pausing work for a disciplinary conversation can seem impractical. Yet every leader interviewed for this article agreed that ignoring infractions ultimately costs more — in morale, in claims, and in credibility. 

Good leaders approach discipline as part of mentorship. They separate the behaviour from the person, emphasize learning, and record every conversation. Documentation is not about mistrust; it preserves transparency for both sides. 

Communication and Documentation 

Documentation transforms a conversation into evidence of fairness. A verbal reminder written in a supervisor's log proves that management noticed, responded, and followed up. 

In most investigations, inspectors ask two questions: Did you know about the hazard? and What did you do about it? Notes, emails, and signed coaching forms answer both. 

In WorkSafeBC v. Western Forest Products (2016), investigators examined a supervisor's record-keeping after a mill injury. The company's detailed logs of prior coaching, written warnings, and retraining showed an active enforcement culture. The Crown withdrew charges against the supervisor, acknowledging that he had taken reasonable steps. 

Western Forest Products illustrates the protective value of documentation. It demonstrates not only diligence but intent — the employer wanted compliance, not punishment, and could prove consistent follow-through. 

Constructive vs. Punitive Mindsets 

Punitive discipline focuses on rule-breaking. Constructive discipline focuses on risk-reduction. The distinction seems semantic but shapes workplace tone. 

When punishment dominates, workers hide mistakes. When learning dominates, they report them. A punitive culture may achieve short-term compliance but suppresses reporting and innovation. Constructive approaches require time and dialogue but produce long-term reliability. 

Research from the Institute for Work & Health (2022) found that organizations describing their discipline systems as "coaching-oriented" had 30 percent fewer repeat infractions than those using traditional punishment models. 

Constructive discipline replaces confrontation with curiosity: Why did this happen? What barrier prevented safe action? Sometimes the issue is training, equipment, or procedure, not attitude. Identifying those barriers converts discipline into prevention. 

The Psychology of Fairness 

Workers judge discipline less by its severity than by its fairness. If they perceive consistency and explanation, they accept consequences. If they perceive bias or surprise, they disengage. 

Transparency is achieved through communication: explaining why the rule exists, what risk it prevents, and what steps will follow. Many supervisors now use collaborative discipline meetings — brief discussions that begin with the worker's perspective and end with a shared plan for correction. 

Behavioural studies from the Canadian Society for Industrial Psychology show that employees disciplined in participatory meetings are significantly more likely to sustain improved performance after three months than those disciplined through top-down warnings. 

Supervisors and Personal Accountability 

Under most OHS statutes, supervisors are individually liable for ensuring worker compliance. Charges against supervisors have increased steadily since 2010. Yet few receive formal training in how to apply discipline fairly. 

Organizations that invest in leadership development for front-line supervisors report stronger cultures and fewer conflicts. Effective training covers legal context, communication skills, and emotional intelligence — how to deliver correction without humiliation. 

One construction firm in Alberta introduced a "coach-before-consequence" model requiring supervisors to document at least one coaching attempt before issuing formal warnings. Within a year, disciplinary cases dropped by half while near-miss reporting rose sharply. 

Unionized and Non-Union Environments 

In unionized workplaces, progressive discipline follows the "just cause" standard interpreted by arbitrators for decades. Non-union employers, although not legally bound by that framework, benefit from adopting its logic: proportionality, documentation, and opportunity for improvement. 

Arbitrators evaluate three questions: 

1. Was the employee aware of the rule? 
2. Was the rule reasonable and consistently enforced? 
3. Was the penalty proportionate to the misconduct? 

Meeting those tests makes any discipline defensible, regardless of sector. 

Coaching and Follow-Up 

Discipline without follow-up is wasted effort. After any warning, a supervisor should check performance within a set period and record the outcome. Continuous engagement shows that the employer seeks compliance, not termination. 

When retraining accompanies discipline, it signals investment in the worker's success. A national construction consortium study in 2021 found that sites combining retraining with written warnings cut repeat PPE violations by 45 percent within twelve months. 

From Compliance to Culture 

Regulators define minimum standards; culture defines performance. A strong disciplinary framework supports culture only when paired with recognition and trust. 

Leaders who balance accountability with empathy build credibility. Workers see that rules are non-negotiable but also understand that management values their improvement. 

Organizations that treat safety violations as opportunities for joint problem-solving rather than personal failure evolve faster, retain talent, and experience fewer disputes. 

Across all jurisdictions, the pattern is unmistakable: regulators view enforcement not as punishment but as proof that the internal responsibility system is functioning. 

Psychological Safety and the Role of Fairness 

Discipline succeeds only in an atmosphere of trust. Workers must believe that enforcement is about protection, not retaliation. When they perceive arbitrary punishment, they disengage; when they see fairness, they participate. 

Constructive discipline therefore becomes part of psychological safety. It reassures employees that everyone is accountable, that leadership will act consistently, and that the goal is prevention. 

The Canadian Standards Association's Z1003 Psychological Health and Safety Standard links procedural justice to workplace safety outcomes. Organizations rated high on "fair management practices" also report stronger compliance and lower incident rates. 

Supervisors who explain decisions, invite questions, and maintain confidentiality strengthen that perception of fairness. In turn, workers report hazards sooner and cooperate in investigations. 

A foreman once described it this way: "If people think you're out to get them, they'll hide mistakes. If they know you're out to protect them, they'll tell you before something breaks." 

Integrating Discipline into Safety-Management Systems 

Discipline should be embedded into every stage of an organization's OHS management system. It connects hazard identification, incident investigation, and performance evaluation. 

After each inspection or near miss, supervisors should record not only technical findings but also behavioural follow-up: who was coached, what retraining occurred, and when improvement was verified. These records feed into trend analyses that reveal systemic gaps. 

A manufacturing company in Québec integrated its disciplinary tracking into digital inspection software. When multiple infractions appeared for the same task, the program flagged a training review rather than another warning. Over a year, lost-time injuries declined by 38 percent. 

Embedding discipline into systems converts it from reaction to prevention. 

Union–Management Collaboration 

Joint Health and Safety Committees (JHSCs) can support constructive discipline indirectly by identifying recurring issues and recommending policy adjustments. They should not administer discipline but can verify that enforcement aligns with the overall prevention strategy. 

Collaborative review reduces grievances and strengthens credibility. When both management and worker representatives agree that expectations are clear and processes fair, enforcement becomes part of shared governance rather than unilateral authority. 

From Rules to Culture 

The ultimate goal is not to build a thicker rulebook but to cultivate a culture where rules are lived. In such cultures, formal discipline becomes rare because peer accountability takes over. 

Leaders set the tone, supervisors reinforce it, and workers internalize it. Recognition programs for safe behaviour complement the disciplinary process, showing that the organization values prevention more than punishment. 

A construction consortium in Manitoba reported that after introducing monthly "Safety Leadership Conversations" — short crew discussions about lessons learned from disciplinary cases — overall compliance improved and formal write-ups fell by 25 percent. Dialogue, not fear, changed behaviour. 

Common Pitfalls and How to Avoid Them 

Several recurring errors undermine otherwise sound programs: 

Inconsistency. When identical violations draw different responses, credibility erodes. Solution: apply standardized documentation and review decisions centrally. 

Lack of follow-up. Issuing a warning without checking improvement signals disinterest. Solution: schedule post-discipline reviews. 

Neglecting supervisors' needs. Many front-line leaders receive minimal training on how to document and communicate discipline. Solution: include soft skills coaching in supervisor OHS training. 

Ignoring systemic causes. Treating every infraction as individual failure masks design or workload issues. Solution: pair discipline with root-cause analysis. 

Addressing these gaps turns enforcement from a paperwork exercise into continuous improvement. 

Lessons from the Four Cases 

Across the four cited decisions — R. v. Wyssen, United Steelworkers v. Vale, WorkSafeBC v. Western Forest Products, and Re City of Edmonton — a consistent pattern appears: 

1. Accountability is non-negotiable. Employers must act on unsafe behaviour. 
2. Fairness determines outcome. Arbitrators support discipline when it is transparent and proportionate. 
3. Documentation decides defensibility. Clear records protect both employer and supervisor. 
4. Learning completes the cycle. Retraining and follow-up transform discipline into culture. 

Together, these principles define constructive discipline as both a legal requirement and a leadership competency. 

Action Steps for Senior Managers 

1. Audit current policies. Verify that procedures distinguish between minor and critical infractions and allow flexibility for context. 
2. Train supervisors. Provide specific instruction on communication, documentation, and emotional intelligence. 
3. Link discipline with metrics. Include corrective-action completion rates in OHS performance dashboards. 
4. Communicate expectations. Ensure every employee knows the process before enforcement occurs. 
5. Review outcomes annually. Analyze disciplinary data for trends and fairness, adjusting policies accordingly. 

These steps align enforcement with both regulatory expectations and modern leadership practices. 

The Broader Business Case 

Constructive discipline supports retention, reputation, and resilience. Workers stay where they feel respected; clients trust companies that demonstrate control without coercion. Insurers also recognize effective enforcement as evidence of maturity in risk management, often translating into lower premiums. 

From a governance perspective, boards increasingly view safety culture — including fair discipline — as part of Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) reporting. Transparent, documented processes show that the organization protects its people as diligently as its assets. 

Conclusion: From Punishment to Partnership 

The phrase "three strikes and you're out" simplifies what should never be simple. Real workplaces require judgment, empathy, and discipline rooted in learning. 

Across Canada, regulators and courts have made the expectation plain: employers must act on unsafe behaviour, but how they act defines their culture. Fair, well-documented, and constructive enforcement builds trust and proves diligence. 

Discipline that teaches rather than punishes transforms compliance into commitment. It turns safety from a rulebook into a relationship — one where every worker understands that accountability is not a threat but a promise: a promise that everyone goes home safe, every day.