CUB 51723

IN THE MATTER of an appeal by the Claimant to an Umpire from a decision by the Board of Referees given at Burnaby, British Columbia, on August 17th, 2000.

The claimant filed this appeal. The issue is whether claimant voluntarily left his employment with Klass Custom Woodworking Ltd. on January 28, 2000, without just cause.

The claimant applied for unemployment benefits and an initial claim was established effective January 30, 2000.

The claimant worked for Klass for thirteen years and it is apparent that he was a valuable, hard working employee. It is apparent, from my review of the docket, that claimant has a problem expressing himself in the English language and in my consideration of the merits of the issue I will make allowances for that factor.

The claimant gives three reasons for having left his job. Firstly, he says he was harassed by his co-workers, secondly, he was having some difficulty with his eyes created by his job on the sanding machine and thirdly, he wanted to move his family to Vancouver to enjoy the warmer climate. I consider the first two as the prime reasons.

With respect to the first reason claimant said co-workers harassed him for working too fast whereas his employer expected him to work that way and as a result he found himself under a lot of pressure. The claimant's statement which accompanied his application reads in part like this:

"I worked for the employer for 13 years. I am a senior worker. I worked hard and fast. However, my co-workers blamed at me that I worked too fast. They didn't like me. On the other hand, my employer wants me to work fast. I just wanted to keep my job while working hard. I had so much pressure when my co-worker blamed at me. I did not want to have any more conflict/fight with them. Therefore I have to quit."

Later, in a letter to the Commission from the claimant, dated April 13, 2000, claimant referred to his eye problem and he repeated his complaints of the conditions of employment and give additional evidence of his co-workers' behaviour by saying they always called him a profane name. I identify the name to which he referred by explaining that it points to the rear end of one's anatomy. That in my view is more than harassment. That behaviour falls into the category of plain abuse. The profane name is misspelt by the claimant, and badly written, and may not have caught the attention of the Board. However, it is recognizable.

With respect to reason number two the report filed from a medical doctor specializing in ophthalmology confirms the claimant's problem with his eyes. That report does not recommend that claimant leave his employment but claimant says the doctor told him he should seek other employment. That is evidence not difficult to accept.

Claimant says he complained to the employer about the treatment to which he was subjected from his co-workers and the employer discussed the matter with them but, according to the claimant, the co-workers thereafter behaved only during those times employer was present amongst them.

The employer's evidence is that the claimant did not discuss his problem prior to quitting. I am inclined to believe, however, that the claimant did speak to the employer but failed to impress upon him the seriousness of his complaint. The employer at the same time, conceded that the workers in his shop are quite close and have had problems with each other. That concession indicates that there is substance to the claimant's complaint of harassment and abuse and that the working environment was not free from tension.

The claimant's desire to move to Vancouver, in my view, was not the prime reason for leaving his job but it became an attractive move after he quit. In his letter to the Commission dated March 20, 2000 he said:

"Beside the problem with my company, I have to move to Vancouver for the better health of my family."

That suggests that relocating to Vancouver was not the prime reason for quitting.

Employees are not expected to continue in an employment and absorb constant harassment and abuse. The claimant's credibility has not been shaken and his attempt to alleviate his grievance has not been rejected.

The Board of Referees erred, in my view, in failing to examine all of the evidence and as a result it arrived at its conclusion without regard for all the material before it. The evidence of harassment and abuse created working conditions that were so manifestly unsatisfactory as to give rise to a valid grievance. Claimant's complaints related directly to his employment and the Board of Referees erred in not determining that claimant has shown just cause.