IN THE MATTER of the EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
- and -
IN THE MATTER of a claim by
S.C.
- and -
IN THE MATTER of an appeal to an Umpire by the employer,
Central Products & Foods Ltd.,
from a decision by the Board of Referees given on
May 10, 2011, at Winnipeg, Manitoba
LOUIS S. TANNENBAUM, Umpire
The employer is appealing a decision of the Board of Referees which allowed the claimant’s appeal of a Commission ruling that the claimant had left his job without just cause pursuant to sections 29 and 30 of the Employment Insurance Act (the Act) (exhibit 6).
A hearing has not been requested therefore a decision will be rendered based upon the information in the appeal docket.
In this instance the claimant quit his employment claiming harassment and conflict in the workplace. The Commission, after investigating, concluded the claimant had quit without just cause and refused to pay him benefits (exhibit 6).
An appeal by the claimant before the Board of Referees was allowed (exhibit 11) and the employer is now appealing that decision before the Umpire, invoking as ground that the Board erred in law in reaching its decision (exhibit 12-2).
In allowing the appeal the Board of Referees concluded:
“The main test for voluntary leaving is set out in 29(c) of the Act.
A person must have just cause with no reasonable alternative to leaving his employment having regard to all the circumstances.
The principles for just cause are established in Tanguay (A-1458-84) and confirmed in Astronomo (A-141-97).
As the Court found in (A-57-06), “just cause” within the meaning of Section 30 is not necessarily synonymous with “reason” or “motive” and good cause is not necessarily just cause for leaving one’s [sic] employment.
The Board finds as fact that the employee left his job voluntarily.
The Board finds as fact that the employee worked in an antagonistic (intimidating) workplace.
The Board finds the claimant to be credible and finds as fact that he was not the person responsible for the antagonism. The claimant reported stealing but saw no action on the employer’s part. This was confirmed by his spouse.
From his perspective this meant discussion on the antagonistic, intimidating and intolerable abuse by his supervisor was meaningless because nothing would happen.
In response to Section 29(c), the Board finds the claimant looked into the alternatives and found there were none. The Board agrees.
The Board finds that in this instance the claimant had just cause for leaving his employment under Section 29(c)(x) which states “antagonism with a supervisor if the claimant is not primarily responsible for the antagonism.” This is further supported in CUB 48580.”
The evidence supports neither the ground of appeal invoked nor any other possible ground of appeal. As the “Master of the Facts” the decision of the Board of Referees was open to it and is a reasonable one which follows the law and the decided cases. There is no reason for the Umpire to intervene.
For the above reasons the appeal before the Umpire is dismissed.
Louis S. Tannenbaum
UMPIRE
Ottawa, Ontario
September 6, 2011