IN THE MATTER OF THE EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
and
in the matter of a claim for benefit by
RONALD USHER
and
IN THE MATTER of an appeal by the Commission from a decision of a Board of Referees given at Regina, Saskatchewan, dated the 8th day of August, 2005.
DECISION
Hon. David G. Riche
The issue in this case is whether or not the claimant had left his employment voluntarily without just cause as described in sections 29 and 30 of the EI Act.
The evidence before the Board was that the claimant who had had some difficulties at work which he considered to be unfair treatment culminated when the claimant had been offered the position of foreman and later that decision was changed and given to a much younger employee with very little experience. The claimant had been working with the company for more than 10 years.
The Board of Referees found that the claimant was advised by the employer that he was going to be appointed foreman but later a younger co-worker received the position. The claimant then went to the office of the employer and was told that his employer had changed his mind. The claimant became upset and said he would not work under the younger employee. He then left his employment. The claimant came back a week later and the employer would not talk to him. He states technically he did not quit. He phoned his employer and talked about the reason for leaving his employment and his employer stated he was putting "quit" on his record of employment.
The Board of Referees, who are the finders of fact, found that the claimant had just cause for leaving if conditions were such as being so intolerable that they could not continue working until other employment is found. They concluded that the claimant's statements were credible, that the claimant was upset, and the employer made no attempt to discuss the matter with the claimant.
For these reasons the Board of Referees allowed the claimant's appeal.
The Commission in its appeal submits that the Board of Referees erred in law when they found the claimant had just cause for leaving his employment pursuant to sections 29 and 30 of the EI Act. They then reviewed the evidence and pointed out that the employer had told the claimant that the official foreman was not likely to return after his holidays and then he was going to be the new foreman and the younger man would be his assistant. However, the next day the employer changed his mind and said that Shane was going to be the new foreman and if the claimant did not listen to him that he would not have a job. The claimant at that point lost his temper and said "I guess I don't have a job".
The position of the Commission is that the Board of Referees erred in law when they failed to consider all of the evidence presented. They based it solely on the claimant's testimony at the hearing. They said jurisprudence has held that the Board cannot exclude documentary evidence provided by the employer because the employer was not present before the Board. The Board was obliged to consider all evidence on file and not just one aspect of the evidence.
The Commission also argued that the working environment would become unpleasant but would not be so unpleasant that he would have just cause for voluntarily leaving his employment.
I have considered this matter and I am satisfied that the Board of Referees' decision was correct in these circumstances. They gave credibility to the claimant's statements and satisfied themselves that the situation was such that the claimant could not continue working in that situation. When he went to discuss the matter with the employer, the employer would not resolve the matter with him and advised him that he did not have a job.
Although it is true the claimant could have continued on working, there was a breach of the agreement made between the employer and the claimant in that the claimant was offered the position, which he accepted, and then later the employer changed his mind, which changed the conditions of employment. Under s. 29(c)(ix) - significant changes in work duties as well as antagonism with a supervisor if a claimant is not primarily responsible for the antagonism - are reasons whereby the claimant can show just cause. In this case it is my view that the claimant having been told he was the foreman, and then the next day told that he was not and a younger person was being put in his position, then that would make the matter so intolerable that a reasonable person would not expect him to be able to continue working in that situation.
For these reasons I am satisfied that the decision of the Board of Referees should be confirmed and the appeal of the Commission dismissed.
David G. Riche
Umpire
March 27, 2007
St. John's, NL