IN THE MATTER of the EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
- and -
IN THE MATTER of a claim by
LUCIA DI VIZIO
- and -
IN THE MATTER of an appeal to an Umpire by the Employer VALU HEALTHCARE REALTY INC from a decision by the Board of Referees given on October 30, 2002, at Brampton, Ontario
DECISION
KRINDLE, Hon.
The employer appeals a decision of the board of referees allowing the claim of Lucia Di Vizio as it was determined she had just cause for voluntarily leaving her employment.
The employer was notified of the date and time for the hearing of the appeal. The claimant appeared with counsel. The employer was not present when the matter was called. I advised the claimant that I would deal with this appeal on the record. The claimant and counsel then left the hearing room. Some time later, a gentleman entered the hearing room while another case was in progress. He then turned around and left. Shortly thereafter, the claimant and her counsel returned to the hearing room. They remained until the case in progress was completed and, when it was finished, advised that the man who had entered and then left the room was the employer. The employer did not return to the hearing room during the balance of the morning. His appeal was dealt with on the record.
There was evidence before the board of referees that the claimant left her employment because her working hours and salary had been reduced; that her ex-employer was defrauding the government and that she was overworked and under a great deal of stress. The board heard the employer testify to the medical condition and personal problems of the claimant and argue that those were the sources of all her stress. The board notes the fact of this testimony at page 2 of its reasons. In other words, the board heard and considered the testimony of the employer. Having heard and considered that testimony, the board stated:
Having regard to all the circumstances including significant modification of terms and conditions with regard to the wages or salary and antagonism with the employer for which the claimant was not primarily responsible, just cause has been proven.
It was open to the board to conclude as it did. There was evidence before it upon which it could come to that conclusion. The board performed the task for which it is constituted, it heard the evidence, considered it, determined who it believed where there was a conflict, and made a reasoned conclusion based upon the evidence.
The appeal is dismissed.
Ruth Krindle
UMPIRE
OTTAWA, Ontario
November 18, 2003