CUB 67278

JEAN A. FORGET, Umpire

The Commission appeals from the unanimous decision of the Board of Referees to the effect that the claimant had just cause within the meaning of sections 29 and 30 of the Act to voluntarily leave his employment.

The claimant filed an initial claim for benefits, which became effective August 14, 2005. He had worked at Sodem Inc. from November 25, 2002 to August 11, 2005. He explained that he quit because he was being assigned more and more tasks and given less and less assistance in doing the work. He did not complain about the situation to his supervisor, who was a replacement who had no role in the work. He did not slow down even though they were asking too much of him, because he wanted to make a good impression. He did not ask for a transfer either, because he did not want to look bad or make negative comments about his superiors. The employer's representative acknowledged that the claimant's working conditions were demanding, since he was working on a job site. She indicated that the claimant's excessive workload was due to the fact that he was required to change all the panels, something which had to be done every three or four years. The employer's representative also said: "[Translation] The city was giving him more work, presenting certain tasks as being expected of him. Possibly Mr. Bonilla misunderstood his role here. When the city presented him with new responsibilities, his only role was to forward the information to us. He did not have to try to meet all the requirements he was presented by the city". She also said that many other employees had found themselves in the same situation and that Mr. Bonilla was the only one who had quit.

The Commission notified the claimant that he would not be entitled to benefits as of August 15, 2005 because he had voluntarily left his employment without just cause.

The claimant appealed this decision to a Board of Referees. At the hearing, he explained that he was doing the work of three people. He received orders from his employer, the city, and city employees. He added that he was required to run the employer's errands with his automobile. He decided to quit because he was swamped, and he saw no use in approaching his superior as he believed that would be pointless. He said that since his separation his manager has been transferred. Finally he indicated that he had begun working for the same employer again, but at another site where he had the same responsibilities but with better management and a better wage. The Board of Referees noted that the employer's explanations did not contradict the testimony of the claimant, whom the Board found to be credible and hard-working. The Board allowed the appeal unanimously.

The Commission is now appealing from the Board of Referees' decision on the ground that it erred in fact and in law in deciding that the claimant had just cause to leave his employment. The Commission argues that the Board of Referees failed to consider whether voluntary leaving was the only reasonable alternative open to the claimant.

The Commission submits that an employee who quits his job without trying to remedy a situation he finds disagreeable can be considered not to have provided just cause for his separation. The Commission further submits that the claimant has not proven that he acted as would any reasonable person who wants to protect his job and that he had no reasonable alternative to leaving.

The determination of whether a claimant has shown just cause for voluntary leaving constitutes a finding of fact. The case law has clearly established that the Board of Referees is in a better position than anyone to analyze the facts, and that the Umpire must intervene only if the Board's decision is manifestly unreasonable as to the facts, if the Board has erred in law, or if it has failed to exercise or has overstepped its jurisdiction.

In the instant case, the decision of the Board of Referees seems to me well founded on the evidence submitted. The employer's representative has acknowledged in Exhibit 4 that there was indeed an excessive workload. Furthermore, the evidence shows fairly clearly that the claimant's workplace totally lacked supervision. The supervisor on duty shut himself up in his office and did not supervise his subordinates. The claimant was receiving orders from all sides and could not manage to meet the demand. The employer's representative indicated in Exhibit 4 that the claimant did not have to satisfy everyone's requirements, but should have confined himself instead to forwarding the requests he received. It seems clear to me that the claimant's role had not been explained to him by the employer.

While the Board of Referees was not very eloquent in its decision, it is my view that there is no reason to intervene. The appeal is dismissed.

Jean A. Forget

UMPIRE

OTTAWA, Ontario
November 17, 2006