IN THE MATTER of the EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
- and -
IN THE MATTER of a claim by
Q.B.
- and -
IN THE MATTER of an appeal to an Umpire by
Brichem Sales Ltd
from a decision by the Board of Referees given on
November 16, 2010 at Mississauga, Ontario
L.-P. LANDRY, Umpire
The claimant’s employer, Brichem Sales Ltd, appeals from a decision of the Board of Referees confirming the Commission’s decision to allow benefits to the claimant. The employer contends that the claimant should not be eligible to benefits as she voluntarily left her employment without just cause.
At the outset the Commission concluded that the claimant did voluntarily leave her employment with just cause. The employer appealed that decision before the Board.
In summary the claimant explained to the Board that she was often threatened with dismissal by her immediate supervisor. This affected her health and she was treated for depression in October 2009. She left her employment on November 6, 2009. The representative of the employer confirmed that the claimant’s immediate supervisor had complaints about the claimant.
The claimant did not complain of her situation to senior supervisors. The Board noted that the claimant feared the loss of her job with possible difficulties in obtaining future job reference.
In conclusion the Board relied on the claimant’s evidence. The Board concluded in part as follows:
‘’The Board finds as a fact that the claimant did suffer depression and that the depression was caused by the antagonism of the employer.
The Board finds as a fact that antagonism by the claimant supervisor and constant threats of dismissal were just cause for voluntarily leaving her employment and that the claimant in her own mind had no reasonable alternative to leaving’’.
The Board after considering the evidence determined that the evidence supported the claimant’s position as opposed to the employer’s position. It was opened to the Board on the basis of the evidence to conclude as it did. In order to review that conclusion, the Umpire would need to conclude that the conclusion is unreasonable and not supported by the evidence.
The conclusion of the Board is supported by the evidence. The appellant has failed to show any reviewable error of fact or of law which would warrant the intervention of the Umpire.
For those reasons the appeal is dismissed.
L.P. LANDRY
UMPIRE
Gatineau, Quebec
February 28, 2012