CUB 66311

R. C. STEVENSON, UMPIRE:

Mr. Liggatt appeals from the decision of a Board of Referees dismissing his appeal from a Commission ruling that he was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because he had voluntarily left his employment without just cause.

From October 7, 2004 to February 6, 2005 Mr. Liggatt was employed by Frasam Investments Ltd. which operated a Mr. Lube franchise at Langley. On October 31 he was promoted from technician to supervisor. He had previously worked at two other franchises. Each franchise is independent of the others. It is clear from the record that after another employer became the manager at Langley antagonistic relations developed between Mr. Liggatt and the manager to whom he reported. I will not review the details of that relationship. They are fully documented in the record. Mr. Liggatt attempted to resolve his concerns with the area manager but was not successful.

Under paragraph 29(c) of the Employment Insurance Act just cause to voluntarily leave an employment exists if a claimant has no reasonable alternative to leaving, having regard to all the circumstances, including several enumerated circumstances one of which is 'antagonism with a supervisor if the claimant is not primarily responsible for the antagonism'.

The Board of Referees said:

In this case, the Board finds as fact that Mr. Liggatt did have reasonable alternatives to leaving his employment. He had resigned two other positions previously with the same company and was aware of his obligation to give 2 weeks notice. His employer stated at the hearing that 2 weeks notice would have given him enough time to work out a plan to accommodate both employees who were having personality conflicts. His employer stated several times that Mr. Liggatt was a valued employee doing a good job and that he was sorry the resignation was so hasty that no alternate "action plan" could be worked out.

The Board finds as fact that the claimant had reasonable alternatives but chose not to explore them.

The Board of Referees did not make any finding as to whether or not there was antagonism between Mr. Liggatt and the manager or, if there was, whether Mr. Liggatt was not primarily responsible for it. The Board's failure to consider those questions was, in view of the record, a refusal to exercise its jurisdiction.

I note in passing that the Commission did not interview the manager when investigating the claim.

The Board of Referees did not identify the reasonable alternatives it felt Mr. Liggatt had but did not explore. It seemed to have felt that he should have stayed on for two weeks to allow the employer to work something out. It may also have been influenced by the Commission's contention that Mr. Liggatt could have transferred to another franchise, a contention I do not find reasonable having regard to the fact that the franchises are individually owned and one must resign from one and apply to another.

The Board of Referees also ignored the fact that Mr. Liggatt had made several approaches to the area manager for a resolution of his problems.

Whether a claimant has just cause to voluntarily leave an employment, i.e. has no reasonable alternative to leaving, is a question of mixed law and fact. The standard of review an umpire must apply is that of reasonableness of the Board's decision.

Having regard to the whole of the evidence in the record I conclude that the Board's Finding that Mr. Liggatt had reasonable alternatives was unreasonable. The evidence is overwhelming and uncontradicted that there was antagonism between Mr. Liggatt and the manager and that Mr. Liggatt was not primarily, or at all, responsible for the antagonism.

The appeal is allowed and the disqualification is set aside.

Ronald C. Stevenson

Umpire

FREDERICTON, NEW BRUNSWICK
July 17, 2006