IN THE MATTER OF THE EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
and
in the matter of a claim for benefit
and
IN THE MATTER of an appeal by the Commission from a decision of a Board of Referees given at St. John's, NL, on the 11th day of April, 2007.
DECISION
Hon. David G. Riche
The issue in this case was whether or not the claimant had just cause for leaving his employment.
The Board of Referees found that the claimant based his appeal on discrimination contrary to the Canadian Human Rights Act and working conditions that constitute a danger to health and safety.
The Commission's position was that the claimant had not shown just cause for leaving his employment.
The Board of Referees found that the claimant was truthful and there was no reason to disbelieve the circumstances in which he was working. The Board took into consideration his 12 years of employment with the company and the fact that it was a non-union shop with a deteriorating relationship between the claimant and his supervisor.
The Board of Referees on the basis of this information allowed the claimant's appeal under s. 29(c) of the Act.
The Commission submits that the Board of Referees committed an error in law when they decided that the claimant had just cause for leaving his employment. They reviewed the evidence. The claimant had stated there was a significant amount of racial tension. The employer when asked about it explained that there was no metal detector in the building and there was a lot of security due to the electronic products they carried. The employer stated that the claimant could have talked with management about his problems as they had an open door policy. He also could have used a grievance process.
The Commission also referred to the allegation made by the claimant with respect to safety. The claimant had stated that the employer was pushing people to work harder without regard for their health and noted that two people had died about four years before. He stated it was because they were not properly trained. He said one died while changing batteries.
The claimant had told the Board that he just did not feel safe working there and did not like the atmosphere that existed between him and his superiors.
The Commission felt that the claimant had a reasonable alternative to leaving his employment as they felt he could have brought up these issues with his manager or filed a grievance. They argued that on numerous occasions a reasonable alternative to simply leaving an employment is to attempt to resolve the complaints with the employer.
In the documentation and in particular 2.6 the claimant stated he quit because of discrimination and harassment, personal conflict at work. He also referred to the fact that there was no one else to discuss this matter with other than his team leader who he was having the difficulty with. He said he didn't know who to turn to. Then in 2.9, question 23, he stated that he had worked there for 12 years and he said the company had been asking him to work in unsafe conditions. Recently he refused to operate a piece of equipment due to unsafe condition and since then he had been harassed.
I have considered the evidence before the Board of Referees and the fact that the Board found the account of the claimant as being credible, it shows that the claimant was suffering some harassment from a supervisor and under s. 29(c)(x) one of the reasons a person can be found to have just cause is where there are antagonistic relations between an employee and a supervisor for which the employee is not primarily responsible. Further, under another sub paragraph (iv) - working conditions that constitute a danger to health and safety - also supports the decision of the Board of Referees when the claimant was given a difficult time because he refused to use a piece of equipment which was not in good working order.
Having considered all of the circumstances in this case and especially the finding of credibility by the Board of Referees, I am satisfied that the appeal of the Commission should be dismissed as the claimant in the situation he was in did not have a reasonable alternative to leaving his employment. His supervisor must have known that the claimant was having these difficulties and dissatisfaction with the working conditions and it appears that he was probably the cause of most of the claimant's problems.
For these reasons the appeal of the Commission is denied.
David G. Riche
UMPIRE
November 13, 2007
St. John's, NL