TRANSLATION
IN THE MATTER OF THE EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
- and -
Jean-Paul Talbot of St-Félicien, Quebec
Appellant
- and -
THE CANADA EMPLOYMENT AND IMMIGRATION COMMISSION
Respondent
DECISION
BARBÈS, UMPIRE
The claimant is contesting the Board of Referees' decision of April 4, 1997 to the effect that the employee, who was experiencing severe conflict, left his employment without just cause.
He was working as a sales representative with Les Cuisines G.B.M. Inc. in 1996. Since the responsibilities were excessive, it got to the point that he found the pressure unbearable.
He tried in vain to rectify the situation with two bosses, and he finally resigned, as "the situation at work had become unbearable".
The Commission felt that he had voluntarily left his employment without just cause. The referees attributed his decision to resign to personal problems which were not believed to be serious enough to legally justify leaving.
The Commission presented the grounds set forth by the Federal Court of Appeal in Tanguay (A-1458-84) with respect to just cause, which is described in section 29(c) of the Act. There was some question whether the claimant showed he had no other reasonable alternative than to resign and whether the conflict with the employers had become so intolerable in this case.
Section 29(c) of the Act of 1996 does make reference to instances where resignation is the only reasonable solution and just cause for voluntary leaving an employment is included. Section 29(c)(x) refers to conflict situations not essentially attributable to the employee.
On April 29, 1997, the claimant wrote the following (exhibit no. 13) for the purpose of appealing the Board's decision, "I could no longer agree with my bosses on anything. I could not put up with it any more. I have been working under tremendous stress for the past few days. I could no longer continue working under those conditions".
I am convinced this employee was justified in leaving his employment. Under the circumstances, it was the only reasonable solution.
It would not have been right to force him to wait longer or to have him look for other employment before he acted as he did.
The Board of Referees had iron-clad evidence that the claimant was experiencing conflict which resulted in him having to leave his employment.
Failure to recognize that resigning under the circumstances was the only reasonable solution is an error in law and in fact.
For this reason, I have decided to quash the Board of Referees' decision (and order) the Commission to pay the claimant the benefits as prescribed by the Act.
The appeal is therefore upheld.
NOËL BARBÈS
UMPIRE
OTTAWA, Ontario
September 29, 1998