CUB 76248

MAXIMILIEN POLAK, Umpire

The claimant appeals from the determination given by a Board of Referees, which allowed the employer’s appeal from the Commission’s decision that the acts of which the employer accused the claimant did not show misconduct on her part. The Commission had accepted the claim for Employment Insurance benefits filed by the claimant (Exhibit 8).

This appeal was heard in Joliette on November 18, 2010. The claimant and her counsel were in attendance.

In this case, an initial claim for Employment Insurance benefits was established as of November 15, 2009 (Exhibit 2). The employer, Olymel Société en Commandite, suspended the claimant for 15 working days from November 16 to December 4, 2009 following an investigation, according to which the claimant harassed certain employees by directing foul, crude and scornful language at them, by criticizing them, by staring at them insistently and by bullying them (Exhibit 4-1).

The claimant denied having stared at anyone or given anyone reproachful looks. She stated that she was never told to stop doing or saying certain things. She said, however, that had she been asked to do so, she would have stopped (Exhibits 4-2 and 4-3).

The Commission asked the employer to provide additional information from the report on the investigation into a complaint. The employer refused to provide that evidence, saying that it was a case of harassment (Exhibit 7).

The Commission gave the claimant the benefit of doubt, as the evidence was equally balanced on both sides (section 49 of the Employment Insurance Act). The Commission determined that the evidence in the docket did not show that the claimant’s suspension was the result of misconduct on her part. It therefore allowed her claim for Employment Insurance benefits (Exhibit 8).

The employer appealed from the Commission’s decision, which it characterized as incorrect in both fact and law (Exhibit 9).

The following excerpts from the Board of Referees’ decision are relevant:

[Translation]
... Employer’s version

The employer presented the following evidence to the Board: it had received a written complaint, conducted a thorough investigation and took into account the specific facts of each case. The other employees were not suspended because there were no letters of complaint. The harassment criteria were applied by the employer in each case.

The employer applied the article set out in the collective agreement and deemed that the matter was sufficiently serious for it to take immediate action.

The employer considered the statements that were given and dismissed the mere allegations, retaining 5 of the 10 in this case. It had heard enough statements to be sure that it was not simply a matter of personal disputes.

... The Board carefully examined the two versions presented and concluded that the employer, through an extensive investigation, had proven the claimant’s misconduct. It analyzed the facts carefully, listened to numerous statements and dismissed the allegations it deemed were not credible. It took into account the evidence, as well as the claimant’s previous behaviour. It enforced the policy on harassment prescribed by Labour Standards. It submitted sufficient evidence for the Board to determine that it had the evidence needed to prove misconduct in the form of harassment. The claimant indicated that she was familiar with the harassment policy. She had to have known that this deliberate and repeated behaviour would not be tolerated by the employer.

In her appeal before me, the claimant alleges that the Board of Referees erred in fact and in law (Exhibits 17-3 and 17-4).

I agree with the claimant. Section 114(3) of the Employment Insurance Act requires that the Board of Referees explain why it is rejecting evidence submitted by one of the parties. That section reads as follows:

... 114(3) A decision of a board of referees shall be recorded in writing and shall include a statement of the findings of the board on questions of fact material to the decision.

In this case, the Board of Referees based its decision solely on the employer’s version, without explaining why it rejected the claimant’s statements and her detailed testimony.

In McDonald (A-297-97), Linden J. aptly described the obligation incumbent upon the Board of Referees: It is imperative for Boards of Referees to address the issues actually presented to them carefully and to explain their findings in coherent and consistent reasoning. Anything less is unacceptable.

In failing to do so, the Board erred in law. However, there is more at issue here. On December 14, 2009, the claimant told a Commission officer that she did not know when the alleged events occurred, nor what she was purported to have said or done. She maintained that it was hearsay (Exhibit 5). On December 17, 2009, the employer, through its Director of Human Resources, refused to divulge information from the employees’ files on the ground that harassment was involved (Exhibit 7-1).

The Commission allowed the claim for benefits because there was not sufficient evidence to prove the claimant was guilty of misconduct (Exhibit 8).

The claimant consistently cooperated during the psychological harassment investigation. On September 28, 2009, she gave a detailed statement indicating that she had never harassed any other employees (Exhibit 4-2).

It cannot be said that the complainants and the employer were as cooperative. The employer’s policy prohibiting all forms of harassment provides for mediation as follows: [Translation] Mediation possible at all times. Any investigation under way should be suspended in the interest of maintaining an atmosphere conducive to resolving the conflict (Exhibit 12-6). It is difficult to understand why all of the complainants turned down mediation (Exhibit 15-3). It was definitely a reason for the Board of Referees to be cautious in assessing the complainants’ evidence. The employer testified before the Board of Referees that it confronted the claimant with each of the allegations, without indicating where the evidence came from. I agree with the claimant when she says:

[Translation]
... No one ever told us to stop saying or doing whatever to whomever. After all this questioning, we still did not know what was going on. It was not until November 16, 2009 that the three of us were informed in writing that we were being suspended. We were punished, but we still do not know what for. We do not know whom we harassed or in what manner.

In its letter of November 16, 2009, the employer informed the claimant that she was being given one last chance, in view of her many years of service and her clean disciplinary record. A 15-day suspension was imposed (Exhibit 4-1).

However, the collective agreement calls for graduated discipline as follows:

- a verbal warning
- a written warning
- a written reprimand
- suspension
- dismissal (Exhibit 6-2).

It is difficult to understand why the employer did not follow the steps set out in the collective agreement and why it gave one last chance to an employee with 33 years’ service and a clean disciplinary record by suspending her immediately. This is another reason for the Board of Referees to be cautious in its assessment of the employer’s evidence.

I agree with Umpire Denault in CUB 17649, where he said, How can a board of referees observe the principles of natural justice when it makes findings of fact solely on the basis of disputed facts concerning which the employer adduces no evidence that the claimant could check ...?

The Board of Referees did not adequately assess the evidence before it. In dismissing fundamental evidence given by the claimant without justifying its decision, the Board of Referees erred in law (Bellefleur v. Canada (AG), 2008 FCA 13).

The employer’s investigation did not conform to the principles of natural justice. The Board of Referees accepted evidence that the claimant could not check, because the employer refused to reveal the names of the complainants and the details of the alleged harassment. At the same time, the Board dismissed the very detailed evidence given by the claimant, without explaining why.

The least that can be said in this case is that the evidence presented by both sides in that regard is equally balanced.

Pursuant to section 49(2), the claimant must be given the benefit of doubt in such a case.

For these reasons, I find that the Board of Referees erred in fact and in law.

Consequently, the claimant’s appeal is allowed, and the Board of Referees’ decision is rescinded.

Maximilien Polak

UMPIRE

Montreal, Quebec
December 24, 2010