IN THE MATTER of the UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
- and -
IN THE MATTER of a claim by LYNDA RIDER
- and -
IN THE MATTER of an appeal to an Umpire by the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission from a decision by the Board of Referees
given on December 12, 1994, at Vancouver, British Columbia
ROULEAU, J.
The Commission is appealing the unanimous decision of the Board of Referees which held that the claimant had not voluntarily left her employment without just cause within the meaning of sections 28 and 30.1 of the Act and paragraph 59.1(1) of the Regulations.
The claimant filed a claim for benefits on September 23, 1994. She had worked as a sales coordinator with The Coast Plaza at Stanley Park from September 9, 1991, until September 16, 1994, when she voluntarily left her employment. She indicated that she quit because of stress-related depression and anxiety. She explained that she had approached her superior to inform him that her workload was becoming too heavy to perform effectively. He had told her that this was normal in the hospitality business.
Prior to leaving her employment, she took three weeks off hoping to feel better. She then returned to work but after seven weeks felt she could not continue and resigned. The claimant submitted a medical certificate dated September 21, 1994, wherein her physician recommended that she take a stress leave for an indefinite period of time. The Commission called the employer who indicated that she was entitled to seventeen weeks of paid leave but she had not applied for it.
By letter dated October 24, 1994, the Commission advised the claimant that she was disqualified from receiving regular benefits from September 18, 1994, and for the remainder of her claim because she had voluntarily left her job with the Coast Plaza on September 16, 1994, without just cause.
The claimant appealed to a Board of Referees. She argued that during her three years of employment with the hotel, she routinely worked forty-five to fifty hours per week. She also stated that employees were not paid for overtime and that because the employer was understaffed, employees were required to do the work of two people, doubling up and filling in when requested. Although Ms. Rider had been told by her employer that her efforts would not go unrewarded, nothing ever came of these assurances. She told the Board that from the outset she had been doing the same job at the same rate of pay, there was no chance for advancement or promotion, and, she was still working long and stressful hours. Furthermore, because of the long working hours it was very difficult to search for another position. She took a vacation, hoping to solve her stress problems but after two weeks back at work, the symptoms re-occurred. The claimant stated that she decided to quit after seeing her physician because she felt it was unlikely she could ever return to work under such stressful conditions.
The Board found the claimant to be a very credible witness. It allowed her appeal holding that she did not voluntarily leave her employment without just cause and that she was therefore entitled to benefits.
The Commission now appeals from the Board's decision on the grounds that it erred in law and failed to apply the recognized jurisprudence. It argues that the Board failed to apply the statutory test prescribed by paragraph 28(4) of the Act, that the claimant had no other reasonable alternative but to leave her employment. It suggests that the claimant should have remained on the job until she had a definite prospect of other work and that a paid medical leave of absence was available to her.
In cases involving voluntary leaving, the issue is whether a claimant had no reasonable alternative but to quit, given all the surrounding circumstances of the case, including those enumerated in section 28 of the Unemployment Insurance Act. I am satisfied that the claimant has met that onus in the present case and that the Board did no err in law or in fact in coming to the conclusion which it did.
There are a number of circumstances here which demonstrate that the claimant had no reasonable alternative but to leave her employment: a medical certificate was submitted which confirmed that she was under tremendous stress caused by the heavy workload which in turn resulted in depression and anxiety; she had taken a vacation to try and remedy the situation but when she returned to work her symptoms reoccurred; she was never compensated for overtime; and, there was no chance for promotion, even though her employer had told her that her efforts would not go unrewarded.
Nor am I persuaded by the Commission's argument that Ms. Rider could have taken a paid leave of absence. The only evidence to support that allegation is a brief note in the file written by the Insurance Officer after a telephone conversation with the employer. In light of the other evidence, that is simply not a sufficient basis for finding that the claimant had a reasonable alternative prior to leaving.
I am satisfied therefore that the Board considered all of the evidence before it and that its conclusion was an entirely reasonable one. There is no basis to warrant the interference of an Umpire with its decision.
For these reasons, the Commission's appeal is dismissed.
"P. ROULEAU"
UMPIRE
OTTAWA, Ontario
September 16, 1996