IN THE MATTER OF THE EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
- and -
in the matter of a claim for benefit by
NORMA GREER
- and -
IN THE MATTER of an appeal by the Claimant from a decision
of a Board of Referees given at Kelowna, B.C.,
on the 9th day of May, 2000
D E C I S I O N
Hon. David G. Riche
Ms. Greer appealed a decision of the Commission that she had quit her job on March 11, 2000, without just cause. The Commission was of the opinion that quitting was not the only reasonable alternative in her case. The claimant and her representative, as well as her employer, attended the hearing. The claimant's mother also appeared.
The appellant's representative stated that the claimant had just cause when she left her job due to stress she encountered with her employers. The communication problems were mainly with Mr. McKay. In addition it was never spelled out what her duties were. The appellant stated she was criticized for knowing information to do with suppliers that she was told she should not have known. She thought she was continually overstepping the bounds but she didn't know what the bounds were due to the lack of communication between herself and the employers.
Debbie Reece gave evidence that supported the employer, stating that communication was good.
The claimant has been working there for six years prior to the new owners taking over. There had never been a problem. Communications with the previous owners had been excellent. Unlike the previous owner, the new owners took an active role in the running of the restaurant. The appellant's representative stated that when the appellant tried to talk to Mr. McKay he told her if she was not happy she could leave. It was also pointed out that the claimant's work schedule had her working with Mr. McKay and not Ms. Reece. On the day she left she was fearful of him and the way he talked made her feel she was fired. The claimant described the day in exhibit 4.
The Board found that the appellant left her job due to stress she was encountering with the new owners. She stated that her communication problems were mainly with Mr. McKay. She did not talk to either Ms. Reece or Mr. McKay regarding the stress she was experiencing, nor her concerns with the lack of communications. The Board concluded that the appellant did not leave her job with just cause as she did not take any steps to talk to the employers about the problems she was experiencing in her relationship with them. The Board could see that there was obviously stresses that the appellant was struggling with, but the jurisprudence is clear that to establish just cause the appellant must make attempts to talk to the employer about her concerns. The Board was very sympathetic to the appellant, and could see that the change in ownership was stressful for her. For those reasons the Board dismissed the appeal.
I have reviewed the file and I am satisfied that the Board of Referees erred in that their decision was based on an erroneous finding of fact that it made in a perverse or capricious manner without regard for the material before it. It seems clear from reading the file that there was communications between the owners and the claimant. It also seems obvious from reading the submissions by the claimant and by Debbie Reece that it was a very unhappy relationship which was not likely to end satisfactorily. My reading of the file leaves me to conclude that the employers were making working conditions such that the claimant's job was becoming so stressful that it was likely that she would leave. When she spoke to Mr. McKay, he suggested to her if she didn't like it she could leave. That is hardly a response from somebody who was willing to discuss the claimant's problems on the job. The claimant also testified in her exhibit four that she was subject to a verbal assault.
Although I agree with the Board that an employee should discuss problems with the employer, in this case she was certainly given what I would refer to as a "cold shoulder" The Board in its decision was very sympathetic to the appellant. They also appreciated her stressful position. They did not however make a decision which reflected the facts of the case. I believe the Board, although attempting to give relief to the claimant, seemed to be restricted because they felt that the appellant had to make more attempts to the employer. The reading of this file indicates that the employers did not want her to continue.
For these reasons I would allow the appeal and set aside the decision of the Board of Referees. I find that the claimant did have just cause to quit her employment at the Cherry Pit Restaurant where she had worked for some seven years.
David G. Riche
Umpire
November 27, 2000
St. John's, Newfoundland