IN THE MATTER of the EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
- and -
IN THE MATTER of a claim by
X
- and -
IN THE MATTER of an appeal to an Umpire by the Employer X from a decision by the Board of Referees given on October 15, 2009 at Nelson, British Columbia.
The Honourable R.J. Marin
This Employer appeal was heard in Kamloops, B.C. on April 16, 2010.
The Employer is appealing the decision of the Board of Referees which allowed the claimant's appeal, setting aside a ruling of voluntary leaving her employment without just cause.
The Employer, who also carries on business under the name of X, claims a number of unsatisfactory issues were dealt with but the claimant failed to properly respond to suggested corrective action. I cannot go into all the details. They are set out in the file of appeal. The Employer regrettably felt that this was a hearing de novo and wanted to expand and make representations which should have been given before the Board at its hearing.
It might be that the same facts, if given to the Board, might have resulted in a different outcome. Regrettably, the Employer did not appear.
The Board found there were some instances of harassment. I quote from its findings at Exhibits 14-4 and 14-5:
FINDINGS OF FACT, APPLICATION OF LAW
Section 30(2) of the Employment Insurance Act provides that an indefinite disqualification is imposed if it has been established that the claimant left her employment without just cause.
Section 29 of the Act sets out the factors to be examined when determining just cause. The test to be applied is, having regard to all the circumstances whether, on the balance of probabilities, the claimant had no reasonable alternative to leaving his/her employment. The Board must look at all of the factors to determine whether there was a reasonable alternative to the claimant leaving his/her employment when they did so.
The Federal Court of Appeal has affirmed that the burden is on the claimant to demonstrate that there was no reasonable alternative to leaving (Rena Astronomo A-141-97).
The Board found the claimant to be a very credible witness.
The Board finds that the claimant was harassed by the shareholders by being constantly criticized.
The Board finds that even though the claimant was hired to be a manager she was being micro-managed by the shareholders and had to justify every decision she made.
Therefore the Board finds that the claimant had just cause for leaving her employment pursuant to Section 29(c)(i)(ix) of the Act.
The Board further finds that the claimant did do a job search as best she could based on her remote location.
DECISION OF THE BOARD: The appeal with regard to whether or not the claimant voluntarily left her employment without just cause pursuant to Sections 29 and 30 of the Employment Insurance Act is allowed.
The standard of review in such cases is reasonableness, as set out in the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal in Benedetti (A-32-09) and Hickey (A-578-07); the Commission supports the decision.
I have not been shown why I should intervene in the absence of an error of fact or law. Accordingly, the Employer appeal is dismissed.
R.J. MARIN
UMPIRE
OTTAWA, Ontario
May 12, 2010