CUB 74762

Archived Content

Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, please contact us to request an alternate format.

TRANSLATION

IN THE MATTER of the EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT

- and -

IN THE MATTER of a claim for benefits by
X

- and -

DECISION

LOUIS S. TANNENBAUM, Umpire

The issue in this case is whether the claimant had just cause for voluntarily leaving her employment under sections 29 and 30 of the Employment Insurance Act (the Act).

A hearing was not requested. A decision will therefore be rendered on the basis of the docket.

According to the employer, the claimant left her employment to retire (Exhibit 3, Record of Employment). However, the claimant stated that she left because of discrimination (Exhibit 2.5, benefit claim).

After an investigation, the Commission allowed the claim for benefits and the employer appealed from that decision to the Board of Referees, which dismissed the appeal (Exhibit 9). The employer now appeals to the Umpire, alleging the three grounds of appeal allowed, (a) denial of natural justice; (b) error of law; (c) error of fact (Exhibit 10.5).

In its findings of fact, the Board of Referees stated the following:

[Translation]

The claimant gave the following reason as just cause:
(x) antagonism with a supervisor if the claimant is not primarily responsible for the antagonism.

However, claimants who want to show that they had just cause for leaving their employment must also show that leaving was their only reasonable alternative (A-141-97).

In this case, the claimant stated that she left her employment for the following reasons:

Her work required a good command of English to communicate with clients and use the computer system. However, the claimant is not bilingual.

She requested training to improve her English, but her request was not granted.

She tried to learn on her own using a cassette tape, but she was told that she could not use such a method at work.

She tried to get help from her colleagues, but was not successful.

Since she was in conflict with her employer, it was difficult to discuss the situation.

She was under stress and had to put up with hurtful words from her employer who criticized her work.

She had to hide from her employer to make her calls; otherwise, he mocked her.

The conflict mentioned by the claimant indeed represents just cause under section 29(c).

However, the Board must also ask itself whether leaving was the claimant’s only reasonable alternative.

In eloquent and credible testimony, the claimant explained to the Board that she tried to get help to improve her English and keep her job. However, she did not get any support from her employer. Tired of enduring the sarcasm from her employer and feeling that the situation was unbearable, she left her employment after taking steps to look for other work.

The employer stated that the claimant left because the employer did not want to give her a pay raise. The claimant stated that she never asked for a raise and that, even if one had been offered, she would have left because she could not stay any longer.

Given the circumstances and the evidence presented, the Board finds that the claimant had just cause for leaving her employment because she proved that she had no reasonable alternative.

The evidence does not support the grounds of appeal invoked. The Board of Referees clearly summarized and understood the evidence and rendered a reasonable decision that complies with the legislation and case law. There is no reason to intervene.

For the reasons stated above, the appeal to the Umpire is dismissed.

Louis S. Tannenbaum

UMPIRE

OTTAWA, Ontario
July 15, 2010