CUB 67421

Hon. David G. Riche

The issue was whether or not the claimant voluntarily left her employment with Wood form Interiors with just cause.

The Board of Referees found in this case that the claimant had been working as a cabinet maker and they found that she had been discriminated against while working there in favor of male employees. They also found that she suffered health issues related to her work. They further found that the claimant was being paid less than the male counterparts.

The claimant apparently decided that she would leave her employment and return to school and seek part-time work. The employer, however, would not support her request. The Board found that the claimant was a credible witness and were satisfied that the claimant had been discriminated against while working with that company. The employer takes the view that the claimant was treated properly because she was paid a wage which was in relation to her skills. The employer was of the view that the claimant did not have the skills of the male employees and therefore was paid less. The employer also admitted the claimant was asked to clean lavatories and was asked to wash dishes. Although the claimant agreed to clean the toilets in return for extra pay, apparently she did not like doing it and that the male employees were not asked to do the same work. The claimant also stated in Exhibit 9-2 that she was asked to perform work that she could not physically handle.

Then at Exhibit 10-1 the claimant advised the investigating agent that she had been suffering from back pain, arm pain, headaches and sore shoulders and had seen her doctor on these issues about a year and a half before. She had been advised it was likely job related. Then at Exhibit 10-2 the claimant stated that she was told by her employer that he couldn't give her more money but she could make extra money by cleaning washrooms.

I have considered the evidence that was before the Board of Referees and I am satisfied that there was sufficient evidence before them to show that the claimant suffered gender discrimination in the workplace as none of the males were asked to clean washrooms nor to wash dishes. Further, it was not explained to her on her being hired that she would be paid less than her male counterparts. Although the employer maintains that the claimant did not have the skills necessary to warrant higher pay, that should have been clarified at the beginning.

I am therefore satisfied that the appeal of the employer should be dismissed as he clearly admitted that he asked the claimant to do chores that he would not ask the male employees to perform. Although the reason the claimant quit employment was stated to return to school, the fact is that her decision to return to school followed the discrimination she suffered on the job and the fact that she had had health issues. The three factors of the discrimination of being asked to do work that the males were not asked to do, and being paid less money, together with the health issues are factors which preceded the claimant's decision to return to school. The claimant was willing to return to work on a part-time basis. Her objective was to complete her course of study as her main priority.

Having considered these factors and the finding of credibility by the Board of Referees, I am satisfied that the appeal of the employer should be dismissed. The decision of the Board of Referees with respect to leaving her employment with just cause is confirmed.

David G. Riche

Umpire

January 8, 2007
St. John's, NL