IN THE MATTER OF THE EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
- and -
in the matter of a claim for benefit by
DANIEL RUSSELL
- and -
IN THE MATTER of an appeal by the claimant from a decision of a Board of Referees
given at Saint John, N. B., on the 25th day of November, 1999.
D E C I S I O N
Hon. David G. Riche
The issue is whether the claimant had just cause for voluntarily leaving his employment pursuant to Sections 29 and 30 of the El Act. The Board considered the contents of the appeal docket and the presentations made. The claimant stated that he was hired to drive a fork lift. He was told that he would work when the fish were in. He stated that when he started he was doing other jobs as well as driving a fork lift. He stated that there were no breaks until the fish were finished. He also stated he was supposed to get a raise, which he did not get. The claimant stated he asked about breaks, but was told he would get a break when the fish were finished. He stated that when he was denied the raise he immediately quit.
The issue is whether or not the claimant had just cause. Section 29 lists a number of causes which would constitute just cause. One of those is 29(c)(vii):
"29(c)(vii) significant modification of terms and conditions respecting wages or salary
(ix) significant changes in work duties."
The decision of the Board states what the claimant has told them and has repeated before me. I find that as it was listed under the facts they were satisfied that Mr. Russell was truthful in his account.
The issue in this case is whether or not Mr. Russell had any reasonable alternative but to quit his position. From what the Board found and from what he presented to me, it seems clear that it was difficult for him to work for this employer. He stated that sometimes he would have to go six or seven hours without an opportunity to have something to eat. He was also required to clean fish which was not part of his job specification. In addition to that, he was promised a raise which he did not get.
I find it difficult to believe that the Board dismissed the claimant's appeal out of hand without giving reasons as to why he did not fit into the causes listed in the subsections of section 29(c). Based on what has been stated in the docket and what has been presented to me at the hearing, I am satisfied that the Board made an erroneous finding of fact which it made in a perverse manner without regard for the evidence which had been presented to it. There is also, ,in my view, an error in law in that they did not apply the provisions of section 29 to the facts of this case. Had they applied those provisions, I feel satisfied that there were reasonable grounds to allow the claimant's appeal, justifying his voluntarily leaving his employment.
For these reasons I am satisfied that the appeal of the claimant should be allowed and a finding of just cause recorded.
David G. Riche
Umpire
February 27, 2001
St. John's, Newfoundland