CUB 62597

Hon. David G. Riche

The Board of Referees determined the issue to be one as to whether or not the claimant had shown just cause for voluntarily leaving her employment pursuant to sections 29 and 30 of the EI Act.

The claimant had been working with a life insurance company for a number of years. She had been in conflict with her supervisor and this culminated in the claimant being yelled at by the supervisor in the presence of other workers. Immediately following this there was a meeting arranged with the manager where the claimant felt she had been unfairly treated and not been given a chance to explain her side. Following that meeting she sent an email of her resignation to the supervisor.

In the evidence before the Board, the Board found that there were no problems between the claimant and the supervisor for a period of one and a half years. The claimant had been told that she would be moved up in her position and she desired to have some further training. Her supervisor repeatedly told her that she would not move up because she did not have sufficient education. The claimant felt that she was being discriminated against. When she tried to communicate with the supervisor, the supervisor would yell at her in front of co-workers and embarrass her.

Following the resignation by the claimant she tried to withdraw it and spoke to the manager who told her that the matter would be looked into. But when she checked with Human Resources her resignation had already been processed.

The Board found that the claimant had just cause for voluntarily leaving her employment primarily because of antagonism from her supervisor under s. 29(c)(x) of the EI Act. They also found that the law provided just cause for voluntarily leaving if the claimant had no reasonable alternative to leaving or taking leave.

The Commission in their appeal claim that the Board was in error. They argue that the burden was on the claimant to show that she had no reasonable alternative but to leave. The fact that antagonism was shown towards her is not sufficient unless she has established that there was no reasonable alternative but to leave. They referred to the Federal Court of Appeal decision in Horslen (A-517-94), which ruled that the question of reasonable alternative is a necessary and non-severable element of just cause determination, even if the claimant brings himself or herself within one of the enumerated circumstances in sections 29 and 30 of the EI Act.

I have considered the evidence in this case and I am satisfied that the decision of the Board of Referees should not be disturbed. It is easy to conclude that the claimant should have spent time looking for other employment prior to sending in her resignation. In order to resolve this issue I refer to Exhibit 9.1 which is a letter from the claimant, prepared for her appeal. I should further point out that the Board of Referees found the claimant to be credible so I can conclude that the evidence in this exhibit should be accepted.

The claimant talked of a stressful meeting with her supervisor and it was followed by her resignation. The claimant asks for a reconsideration through the manager as her supervisor was not there that day on September 5, 2003 just two days later. This was before her resignation would have become effective. The manager then had to speak with the supervisor but the supervisor would not be returning to work until September 9, 2003 which was the date for the completion of the resignation. The manager told her that she had been approached three times by the supervisor to reconsider but no such conversation had ever taken place. Then on the 9^th of September, 2003 she met with her supervisor and requested her resignation be overturned only to be told that it was too late, that it had already been forwarded to Human Resources. The claimant called Human Resources and was told that no one there has spoken to her supervisor.

Then the claimant points out that her resignation was not overturned because of poor job performance, yet the claimant had received generous bonuses based on job performance and received praises in writing on her job evaluations each year.

My reading of this correspondence and what had taken place between the claimant and the supervisors show that the supervisor was antagonistic towards the claimant. Bad blood existed between them and the supervisor did not act, in my view, in a manner which would be expected of somebody in her position who should be helpful to the employees under her.

The issue of seeking alternate employment is a requirement which all employees should attempt to do prior to quitting. In this case the claimant held on to her position until such time as she was so embarrassed that she sent in her resignation. To be publicly humiliated concerning one's job performance is not an appropriate way for a supervisor to act. How long should an employee endure this treatment is uncertain. It is my view, however, that in such circumstances it would be extremely difficult for an employee to continue on in the same manner, under the same conditions for any length of time while they look for employment which may take anywhere from one to three months.

The claimant could have continued working had the manager and the supervisor taken reasonable steps to have her reinstated rather than to do nothing but to refuse to reject her resignation. Accepting her resignation would have kept her off the EI road and given her time to seek other employment unless conditions at her place of employment improved. My consideration of the evidence agrees with that of the Board of Referees that the claimant in this case did what a reasonable person would have done faced with these circumstances. No one should be subject to public ridicule and expected to hang on and seek work which may take three months or more to find.

For these reasons I am satisfied that the appeal of the Commission should be dismissed.

David G. Riche

Umpire

December 10, 2004
St. John's, NF