CUB 70990

LOUIS S. TANNENBAUM, Umpire

The present appeal heard at Penticton on July 21, 2008 deals with sections 29 and 30 of the Act, namely whether or not the claimant had just cause for voluntarily leaving his employment.

A Board of Referees unanimously allowed the claimant's appeal (exhibit 14.7) from a decision of the Commission which held there was no just cause. The present appeal to the Umpire is launched by the claimant's former employer. The Commission has not appealed the Board's decision and, in fact, at the hearing before the undersigned it informed the Umpire that it supports the Board's decision.

In its unanimous decision allowing the claimant's appeal, the Board held:

"The appellant would not sign a confidentiality agreement or an office policy because he wanted his employer to address his concerns about his lack of adequate assistance to do his job. He stated that he was wrongfully fired, and advances as support for this statement that fact that another employee was suspended without pay for refusing to sign these documents. He stated his desire to have the Board consider as applicable to his appeal: changes in work duties; antagonism with a supervisor if the claimant was not primarily responsible; and undue pressure for a claimant to leave their employment. He provided details about the number and positions of employees who had given him assistance when the previous owner managed the company, and the changes after someone became the major shareholder. He reiterated that he knew his employer was going to dismiss him.

The employer refutes the appellant's statements regarding an increased workload. He stated that the last letter he unsuccessfully tried to give the appellant was a third and final warning regarding the appellant's refusal to sign the office policy and confidentiality agreement.

The Board prefers the evidence of the appellant that his workload had significantly increased, and finds this a significant change in work duties. The appellant was consistent, clear and precise in his statements regarding the assistance he had received from other employees during the years 2000 to 2006.

The Board finds as fact that the changes ensuing from the major shareholder's takeover of the business resulted in changes to the appellant's workload. The major shareholder was not responsible for the departure of the payroll clerk who used to assist the appellant, but his loss was of the extent that the new, inexperienced person who was hired was unable to render the same level of assistance.

The Board noted that the employer wished to have all employees sign his office policy and confidentiality agreement, but finds that he did not inform his employees that he expected them to approach him to discuss concerns that they had. In fact, the appellant had approached him on several occasions about needing extra help, and had received no substantive assistance.

At the same time, he was being pressured by his employer to sign two agreements. He had obtained legal advice that he ought not sign these documents until he had resolved his concerns with his owner, and his employer gave him no indication that he would discuss the appellant's issue. The employer had prepared the appellant's third and final warning.

The Board therefore finds that the appellant showed just cause for leaving employment; that is, considering all circumstances, the claimant had no reasonable alternative to leaving."

It has been held on numerous occasions that the Board of Referees is the master of the facts and that its decision should not be reversed or interfered with unless there are compelling reasons to do so. In the present instance the record contained sufficient evidence for the Board of Referees to arrive at the conclusion which it did. The Board did not commit any error of fact, nor any other error. It diligently followed the legislation and the decided cases.

For the above reasons, the employer's appeal to the Umpire is dismissed.

Louis S. Tannenbaum

UMPIRE

OTTAWA, Ontario
August 15, 2008