CUB 61466

Hon. David G. Riche

The issue in this case is whether or not the claimant voluntarily left his employment without just cause.

The information from the docket was that the claimant was hired as a machine operator but after ten months was asked to perform different jobs. For that reason he quit his employment.

The Board of Referees found that the claimant was told to do a different type of work from his original job where there would be no alteration in his pay or hours of work. The claimant had been hired as a machine operator and was then switched to packaging and clean up. The Board found that the claimant did not like the new job but his hours did not change and his pay was the same. The Board of Referees came to the conclusion that the claimant quit his job, did not look for another job while he was working, and found that the claimant's job did change. However, his wages, hours and conditions of employment did not change.

When the claimant came before me he advised me that he was employed as a machine operator. Then he was asked to change jobs and was asked to do cutting which was much more work for him and different from being a machine operator.

It was suggested by counsel for the Commission that the claimant should have negotiated with his employer to see if something could be worked out prior to him quitting. The counsel also suggested that the claimant should have stayed in his job until he had an opportunity to look for other work.

In reply to these suggestions the claimant pointed out to me that he was told that he could no longer work as a machine operator but would have to do this other work which he did not want to do. Further, if he did not do that work there was no job there for him. The Commission, however, felt that the claimant is responsible to first try and resolve the situation at work with his employer which he did not do. And they say that there was no evidence to show that the job was so intolerable that he could not remain until he could find some other suitable work.

When comparing what the claimant stated to me and the suggestions of the Commission counsel, I find that there appears to be little room for negotiation between the claimant and the employer. I am uncertain as to whether or not this information was given to the Board of Referees. The Board did however say that the conditions of employment did not change. That, in fact, is contrary to the evidence as it is clear that the claimant's work did change from being a machine operator and even the Board of Referees found that he was switched to packaging and clean up.

The claimant clearly stated to me that when he was switched to this other position he refused to do this type of work and he was told that it was either change to this other type of work or there was no job for him.

It is my view that the evidence before the Board of Referees shows that there was a significant change in the claimant's work duties. He was hired as a machine operator and had worked there for ten months as a machine operator.

It is my view that the claimant was hired as a machine operator and should not be changed from that position without his consent. Moving from being a machine operator to cleaning up or cutting seems to me to be a substantial change in his duties. The information provided by the insurance agent in the supplementary record of claim causes more confusion than it does enlightenment as it seems to be somewhat different than what was found by the Board of Referees and what was stated by the claimant.

In my view, even if I take the findings of the Board of Referees that the evidence was that the claimant was hired as a machine operator and was then switched to packaging and clean up, that in my view would have been significant change in work duties.

For these reasons I am satisfied that the evidence is such that I should give a decision which the Board of Referees should have given as their finding of facts are erroneous and contrary to the evidence they had before them.

The findings of the Board of Referees that there was no change in the conditions of his employment was contrary to their findings that the evidence was that the claimant was hired as a machine operator and then switched to packaging and cleaning up. That, in my view, would lead to a reasonable conclusion that there was a significant change in the claimant's work duties.

Further, it is my view that they erred in law in not applying s. 29(c)(ix) to determine this matter. There was also the evidence that the claimant was told that he would not have a job if he did not perform these other duties instead of being a machine operator.

For these reasons I am satisfied that the decision of the Board of Referees should be set aside and the appeal of the claimant allowed.

David G. Riche

UMPIRE

August 30, 2004
St. John's, NF