CUB 44290

IN THE MATTER OF an appeal by the
Claimant from a decision of the Board of Referees
given on October 9, 1997 at Bathurst, New Brunswick

Ms. Sullivan appeals from the decision of a Board of Referees' dismissing her appeal from a Commission ruling that she was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because she had voluntarily left her employment without just cause. Ms. Sullivan has agreed that the appeal should be decided on the basis of the documents filed.

Ms. Sullivan applied for and was hired for the position of Child Sexual Abuse Prevention Specialist with the Department of Health and Social Services in the Keewatin Region of the Northwest Territories. The job description in the advertisement for the position read as follows:

Under the direction of the Regional Psychologist, the successful candidate will be responsible for providing a specialized service in the area of child abuse. You will provide guidance, consultation, assistance and training to all Health and Social Services staff who are involved in the development and implementation of child sexual abuse prevention programs and services. You will also assist various community regional groups to establish programs to prevent child sexual abuse.

Ms. Sullivan submitted a detailed history of her work at Arviat and participated in the Board of Referees hearing by telephone. Despite the detailed written presentation by Ms. Sullivan the Board said she had not given any new information. The Board made no review of the facts and its decision does not satisfy subsection 114 (3) of the Employment Insurance Act which requires that a decision of a Board of Referees include a statement of the findings of the board on questions of fact material to the decision. As there is no issue of credibility I will give the decision that the Board of Referees should have given.

Ms. Sullivan began work at Arviat on March 4, 1996. When she arrived in Arviat her employer told her that she would be Mental Health Consultant for Arviat and Whale Cove with a specialty in child sexual abuse. Having given up a job in New Brunswick to go to Arviat Ms. Sullivan decided to give the mental health position a try. Over the next 13 or 14 months her duties constantly changed.

She worked as mental health consultant until July 17, 1996 when she became acting area supervisor when the person in that position transferred to another location. In that position she responded to child welfare cases and provided general supervision to three social workers. By August 23 all three social workers had resigned and Ms. Sullivan was alone in caring for two communities.

A new supervisor arrived in September. Ms. Sullivan continued to work with mental health clients and also performed the duties of a Community Social Worker III which included the provision of departmental services, support services, child welfare services, social services to the aged and handicapped, and community corrections services.

While in the north Ms. Sullivan did take some child welfare training, not because she wanted to work in that field, but because she found herself having to respond to child welfare and protection cases.

Following her vacation at Christmas 1996 Ms. Sullivan agreed to work temporarily at Baker Lake in a children's group home. She returned to Arviat on February 28. On April 1, 1997 a restructuring took place in the department. Mental health positions became social worker positions and Ms. Sullivan was going to be required to do child welfare/protection work on a full time basis. During March Ms. Sullivan was able to make some presentations on sexual abuse for the community, what she had originally been hired to do.

Absence of supervisory personnel in April again put Ms. Sullivan in charge of the office for a time. The supervisor returned but one worker was on sick leave. At this point Ms. Sullivan realized that the switching of duties was a constant factor and it became impossible for her to provide the service she wanted to provide and which she had been hired to provide. It was a stressful situation. Ms. Sullivan gave her employer five weeks notice of her resignation.

In her submission to the Board of Referees Ms. Sullivan summarized her situation:

... I never had much of a chance to perform the duties I was hired to do. I was originally hired to be a Child Sexual Abuse Prevention Specialist, the only time I did something related to this job besides counselling sexual assault victims was when I did a presentation on sexual abuse for the community.

The situation I was in was intolerable, with excessive overtime, continuous changing of duties, having to be individually responsible for the welfare of two communities (combined population @ 1850 people) for approximately two months, not receiving support from my employer (Health Board) and being put in dangerous situations. These are just a few of the things that I faced during my employment in the north. I do not feel that I am exaggerating when I state that my employment became intolerable. I had no other choice but to leave ...

Paragraph 29 (c) of the Act provides that just cause for voluntarily leaving an employment exists if the claimant had no reasonable alternative to leaving, having regard to all the circumstances, including any of several specific circumstances of which one is "significant changes in work duties". Clearly this is a case where there were significant changes in work duties. The position for which Ms.. Sullivan was hired was misrepresented by the employer to those who applied for it. Ms. Sullivan is to be commended for her loyalty to her employer and for sticking it out as long as she did.

I find that the changes in work duties were such that the situation was intolerable and that Ms. Sullivan had just cause to leave her employment.