IN THE MATTER of the Unemployment Insurance Act
- and -
IN THE MATTER of a claim for benefits by
SIEGFRIED PETER
- and -
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 July 27th, 2000.
DECISION
Heard at Vancouver, British Columbia, on March 29th, 2001.
W.J. HADDAD, Q.C., UMPIRE:
The claimant filed this appeal. The issue involved is whether he voluntarily left his employment with Paramount Roofing Ltd. on April 13, 1994 without just cause.
The claimant, a roofer by trade, filed an application for unemployment benefits on December 31, 1993 and an initial claim therefor was established effective December 5, 1993. Subsequent thereto the Unemployment Commission learned that the claimant was employed by Paramount Roofing until April 13, 1994 at which time he left that employment voluntarily. Following the employer's statement that claimant quit because he was unhappy with the wage rate the Commission determined that claimant was unable to show just cause for leaving his job and imposed a disqualification of benefits effective April 11, 1994. Other matters which arose involving an allocation of earnings and an allegation of making a false statement are not issues in this appeal. The Board of Referees only dealt with the issue of leaving employment and just cause in connection therewith.
The overpayment of benefits demanded by the Commission consists of a substantial sum in excess of $10,000.00.
Throughout the docket there are complaints by the claimant of discrimination and unfair labour practices on the part of the employer as well as a reduction in his rate of pay. The only justification advanced by the claimant in his oral presentation in this appeal for leaving his employment is that he quit because the employer unilaterally reduced his hourly wage rate. His presentation was short and brisk. The explanation given by the employer, in a letter to the Commission, dated May 16, 2000, is that it experienced some problems with the claimant with respect to directions given to him by both his foreman and the superintendent. Because matters did not improve following discussion with the claimant the employer, rather than terminate claimant's employment, reduced his hourly wage rate from $20.00 to $18.00. The employer acted without obtaining claimant's approval. The claimant objected and decided to quit.
The Board of Referees in its decision referred to the allegations of employer discrimination and unfair labour practices and disposed of that allegation by saying:
"The Board concluded that the employer's statements were more reasonable and credible then the claimant's because the claimant, by his own admission, quit his job without any attempt to first resolve the issue(s) with the employer."
The Board of Referees failed to consider the question concerning the reduction of claimant's wage rate. It made no reference to the Unemployment Insurance Act, section 28, ss. (4)(g) which provides that "just cause" for voluntarily leaving an employment exists, inter alia, in the circumstance of a "(g) significant modification of terms and conditions respecting wages or salary." Disregard of that provision constitutes an error in law on the part of the Board.
The reduction of $2.00 per hour for an eight hour day means a reduction of $16.00 daily. Based on a five day week, the weekly loss amounts to $80.00 and over the period of one month the loss would approximate $345.00. That reduction is surely a significant modification of a term respecting wages and provides the claimant with a show of "just cause" for leaving his employment.
Because the Board of Referees disregarded the legislation to which I have alluded I have given the decision the Board should have given. I, therefore allow the appeal and set aside the decision rendered by the Board.
Appeal allowed.
W.J.Haddad
W.J. Haddad, Q.C. - Umpire
Dated at Edmonton, Alberta,
May 11, 2001.