CUB 67392

Hon. David G. Riche

The issue in this case was whether or not the claimant voluntarily left his employment without just cause within the meaning of the EI Act.

The Board of Referees found that the claimant had established a claim for benefits January 15, 2006. He had left his employment the day before. The reason for leaving his employment was an ongoing conflict with management. The claimant spoke to the owner in order to try to resolve the issues but it was to no avail.

At the hearing the Board of Referees received a letter from the claimant's chiropractor and letters from co-workers who described working conditions.

The Board of Referees found that the claimant quit his job suddenly because he was fed up with the moral and conflict there. The Board then referred to the test for voluntarily leaving employment in that the claimant had to show that he had no reasonable alternative under s. 29(c) of the Act. They found that the claimant did report antagonism with the store manager but did not stay long enough to seek resolution and the employer indicated that the claimant was primarily responsible for the antagonism. The Board found that the claimant did not have just cause within the meaning of the EI Act and could have remained employed while he completed a job search.

When the claimant appeared before me, he pointed out that he had had many difficulties while working with his former employer. He pointed out to me Exhibit 2-8, advising that the supervisor he worked under had a drug problem. He then pointed out to me in Exhibit 2.8 and 2.9 in answer to questions as to why he quit his employment and the claimant stated that his difficulties started about two and a half years ago. That's when his first manager got hooked on crack. He spent the next two years covering for the supervisor. Then that supervisor was let go. He then had to work under another supervisor who caused him difficulty when his workload tripled because the new manager was not carrying his share of work.

The claimant also stated that he was being questioned constantly upon his sales tactics. Unfortunately the Board of Referees did not refer to this exhibit or to the fact that the claimant was under so much stress while working there and was not listened to by the owner. Then at Exhibit 4 the claimant stated that the manager wanted him to give up his mechanic sales work and concentrate on tire sales only. The claimant stated that he had been there five and a half years and always had top sales, and had never been questioned about his sales abilities. He also alleged that he had to do all the manager's paper work.

In reply to that the employer sent a letter to the Board of Referees and denied the claimant's statement. Although they didn't argue with the style of management from the new manager, they agreed it was different from the previous manager.

Then there is a letter from the claimant's chiropractor dated April 3, 2006 stating that the claimant had been attending his office for about five years and the claimant stated to him that he had increased stress at work that seemed to trigger painful episodes. Then at Exhibit 13-2 and Exhibit 13-3, there are two letters from other employees which state that the claimant was put under a lot of stress and was doing a lot of extra work to keep up with the customers. They had to put up with a lot of stress to deal with the incompetence of the new management. The statement of one of the employees was that the manager was unaware of the tire business. He also stated that the claimant's work load had increased significantly.

Unfortunately the Board of Referees did not deal with these pieces of evidence in their finding.

It seems clear that the Board of Referees did not consider section 29(c)(ix) - significant changes in work duties. The Board of Referees should have dealt with that particular section of the Act to determine whether or not the claimant's difficulties came about from significant changes in his work duties. It is my view that had they applied themselves to the evidence they had before them and particularly evidence of fellow employees as well as the changes in management, they should have found that there were significant changes in the claimant's work duties. The claimant was required to do substantially more work and a lot of work that the manager was supposed to do. That was not refuted in the evidence. The Board of Referees made no finding of fact with respect to these issues.

Having considered this evidence, I am satisfied that I should give a decision that the Board of Referees should have given. The significant changes in the claimant's work responsibilities together with the difficulties he has had there over the past five years show that the claimant could not continue working there because of the stress that was built up due to these changes.

Having considered the evidence, I am satisfied that the Board of Referees were in error in their finding of fact that the claimant had not shown just cause under s. 29(c) of the Act.

For these reasons, I am satisfied that the decision of the Board of Referees was at error in law and should be set aside. The appeal of the claimant is allowed based on a finding that the claimant had significant changes in his work duties. That, together with the fact that the morale where he worked, was such that he was left with no reasonable alternative but to leave his employment.

David G. Riche

Umpire

January 8, 2007
St. John's, NL