CUB 43142

IN THE MATTER of an appeal by the Claimant to an Umpire
from a decision by the Board of Referees given at
Edmonton, Alberta, on February 12, 1998.

DECISION

This appeal was filed by the claimant. The issue is whether the claimant left his employment with Melloy and Associates Ltd. on May 10, 1997 without just cause.

The decision delivered by the Board of Referees is quite unsatisfactory. The Board simply recited evidence given by the claimant and the employer. It did not review the evidence fully nor did it make findings of fact or give a definition of "just cause".

Rather than refer the matter back to the Board I will give the decision the Board should have given.

The claimant was employed by Melloy & Associates on the Syncrude Suncor site, Maintenance Shutdowns. He was the job steward (union representative) for Boilermakers Union local 146.

The claimant submits there is a prime and real reason for leaving his employment as well as secondary reason which hastened his leaving.

The primary reason involved the problems he encountered with Suncor in his capacity as job steward. He says he was "trying to get a few things done for the 'boys"'. He complained that on weekends Suncor refused to clean the rooms in which they were housed according to its obligation in that regard. Suncor also refused to bring in bottled water. Water was supplied out of a garden hose outside the bathrooms. Claimant contended that supplying water in that manner was unsanitary. In addition, he complained that the beverages Suncor supplied with the lunches it prepared for the men were inadequate. Each man was supplied with one 250 ml carton of milk and one 250 ml drink for a ten hour shift. The claimant's request that those amounts be increased met with refusal. At safety meetings claimant's request that the company provide water coolers and bottled water met the same fate. Claimant's additional concern is that they were all exposed to x-rays which constituted a safety hazard.

The conditions of which claimant complained were partially corroborated by Chris Martin who worked as field foreman on the same project and in that capacity he was claimant's direct supervisor. His written evidence is that the claimant endeavoured to address several safety measures the most serious of which was the exposure of men to "Hot Shots (x rays)". Claimant's approaches to management, he says, met with resistance.

Claimant's contentions were also corroborated, in part, by Blair Senecal also employed on the project as a foreman. He gave a Commission investigator an interview in support of the employer. He branded the claimant a trouble maker and criticized him for failing to follow proper procedures. At the same time he admitted in effect, that it was the company's obligation to make the beds and sweep the floors on the weekends but some weekends that responsibility was not always fulfilled. He suggested instead that the men should have been able to clean up and make their own beds.

Sometimes after the Board delivered its decision the claimant met one Malcolm Campbell, who was the general foreman for Malloy & Associates. His memorandum "To Whom It May Concern" was placed in the docket. Claimant informed me that insofar as he was aware Mr. Campbell's evidence was not available when he appeared before the Board of Referees. That evidence is of significance and I intend to refer to it. Moreover, counsel for the Commission did not make a strenuous objection to its reception. His evidence corroborates the claimant's difficulties with management in every aspect.

Mr. Campbell dealt with the claimant on a professional basis and claimant was in direct contact with him with respect to concerns facing the men regarding their safety and well being. Rather than trying to paraphrase his comments I will quote his words:

"A job steward is incorrectly tagged as a trouble maker. Dennis Crouthers after numerous attempts to rectify situations diplomatically became frustrated. I can understand his frustration and sypathize with him greatly. Suncor personnel were quite difficult to deal with on any level. I myself had numerous conflicts with these people which at the time seamed quite easily fixed, but for whatever reason Suncor makes them difficult ie. x-rays, room cleaning on weekends, I have worked at Suncor in the past and know that Suncor does not clean the rooms on weekends. My men work hard. And I respect them for the work they did for me under the circumstances. And myself, out of repect for the "working man" see no reason why a room shouldn't be done on the weekends. There is only one reason of coarse, Money! Dennis Crouthers should not be, "Picked out of the crowd", for trying to do a thankless job. Dennis was standing up for the membership with his back against the wall, and his frustration with un-cooperating parties, Dennis with much communication with myself, decided that his services not being respected, terminated his employment with Melloy and Associates. I understand the reasoning for his disgruntlement. I was there!"

The secondary reason which arose and which may have been the immediate trigger for claimant leaving his job is that his girl friend, in Edmonton, was given a Notice to Vacate the premises in which she resided and he felt he had an obligation to rush to her assistance. He had not encountered so many problems with his employment there is every reason to believe he could have arranged a leave of absence. He decided instead it was a convenient time to quit.

A definition of "just cause" widely accepted was given by Jerome, A.C.J. in CUB 21628.

"Jurisprudence has established that the criterion of just cause will generally be considered to be satisfied if the conditions of employment are so intolerable or manifestly unsatisfactory as to give rise to a genuine grievance together with the taking of all reasonable steps to alleviate the problem before quitting the employment. The test of "just cause" for leaving is whether a claimant has acted as a reasonable person would in similar circumstances. When no alternate employment has been obtained, a claimant must have very solid and compelling reasons for leaving the employment in which she is engaged and placing herself in the position of being unemployed."

The conditions of claimant's employment was indeed intolerable. His grievances were genuine and he took reasonable steps to alleviate many problems only to meet with resistance. He was branded a trouble-maker for his efforts and that attitude alone on the part of management made claimant's employment difficult to the point where it become intolerable. Without the co-operation of management he was unable to correct the grievances of the men whom he represented. The claimant in quitting acted reasonably in the circumstances.

Although the Board of Referees did not have the advantage of Mr. Campbell's evidence, it failed to review all the evidence it did receive and it avoided making findings of fact. The Board arrived at its decision without regard to all the material before it - and - on that account the Board erred.