IN THE MATTER OF THE (UN) EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
- and -
IN THE MATTER of a claim for benefit by
SELBY A. PEARCE
- and -
IN THE MATTER of an appeal by the Claimant
from a decision of a Board of Referees given at
Corner Brook, Newfoundland, on the 8th day of March, 2000
DECISION
Hon. David G. Riche
Mr. Pearce appeals on the grounds that he was employed to work as a service station ramp attendant. This required doing grease and oils on the cars. When he acquired the job he was required to wash cars and mow lawns around the employer's premises. Mr. Pearce stated that the employer's statement that the claimant did no mechanical work was not a true statement. Mr. Pearce stated that he did do mechanical work, flushing radiators and doing brake jobs on the vehicles. Sometimes he did this on his own and sometimes under supervision. He also repaired rack and pinion steering and installed plugs and alternators into vehicles.
The reason he quit his employment was because he demanded more money for doing mechanical work than the $6.00 per hour he was given as a ramp attendant.
It appears that the Board did not give much weight to the fact that he did do these types of work outside the specifications of what would be expected of a service ramp attendant.
It is my view based on the evidence that there is some issue as to credibility and some issue as to whether or not the Board properly considered the other duties performed by Mr. Pearce. I am satisfied that if Mr. Pearce did mechanical work that this was outside of his job specification for a pay of $6.00 per hour. It is my view that if Mr. Pearce had to do work of greater value, he should have received a greater amount of compensation. This should have been negotiated between the employer and Mr. Pearce. The only evidence that seems to have been presented is the fact that Mr. Pearce demanded more monies for doing these chores and it was refused by the employer. It was for these reasons that Mr. Pearce left the employ of the employer.
It is my opinion that if what Mr. Pearce says is credible, he was within his rights to demand more compensation for the greater value mechanical work. If the employer demanded such work of him and refused to pay him a reasonable amount for such work, then it is my view that Mr. Pearce would have had a just cause to quit his employment.
I have decided that this matter be referred back to a Board of Referees to reconsider this matter with the direction that should they find that Mr. Pearce did do work of higher value, then he should have received higher pay. If the employer refused to pay a greater sum for the mechanical work, Pearce had a right and just cause to quit that employment.
It is therefore ordered that this matter be referred back to a Board of Referees for rehearing to determine these issues.
David G. Riche
Umpire
July 26, 2000
St. John's, Newfoundland