This Tweet, and TomEngel18's quote tweet, reflect a profound misunderstanding of the law in this area. Let's unpack the law.
1/
#ableg https://twitter.com/UbakaOgbogu/status/1332176432752066560

Employees, but particularly public servants, owe a duty of loyalty to their employer. In the case of public servant, the duty is to promote an impartial & effective public service. There are circumstances when an employee may express public disagreement with their employer. 2/

An employee may not leak documents simply because they think doing so is in the public interest. More is required. First, the employee must exhaust all internal channels to air concerns. That is easy to do in Alberta. Whistleblowers have protection. 3/ https://www.alberta.ca/public-sector-whistleblower-protection.aspx

In Therrien's Case, the case Mr. Engel cites, the fact the employee did not raise her concerns internally played a significant part in the decision to uphold her termination. Like in this situation, she did not engage, let alone exhaust, any internal process. 4/

It is only after an employee exhausts the internal processes that he or she *may* be entitled to go public with criticism or concerns. But this right to go public arises only in very limited circumstances. 5/

This right to express public disagreement is engaged if, for example, the Government were engaged in illegal acts, or if its policies jeopardized the life, health or safety of the public servant or others. There must be strong evidence that this is so. 6/

I am not going to comment on whether the policies of the government would jeopardize life, health or safety of the public. I am going to stay in my lane and assume, for the purposes of the discussion, they do. 7/

Since the whistleblowing policy was not accessed, internal concerns were not voiced, this is not lawful conduct and is misconduct, likely supporting termination. It is not whistleblowing at all. Fin