CUB 68091

M. E. Lagacé, Umpire

The Commission has appealed from the unanimous decision of the Board of Referees allowing the claimant's appeal, and rescinding its determination that she did not qualify for benefits because she had voluntarily left her employment without just cause within the meaning of sections 29 and 30 of the Employment Insurance Act (the Act).

The claimant was assisted by her father, and appeared before the Board of Referees. She did not appear to make her case before the undersigned Umpire, making it necessary to weigh the evidence in the docket and the arguments submitted by the Commission in support of its appeal in order to consider whether it is justified.

It appears from the docket that the claimant had given the manager of the store in which she worked advance notice that friends had organized a party for her birthday, and that consequently, she could not work overtime that day.

On the day in question, the manager asked her to continue working beyond her regular hours to replace an employee who had not reported to work.

Faced with a choice between disappointing friends who were waiting at a party held in her honour, and the manager's requirement that she continue working beyond her regular hours, the claimant refused to stay and elected to go to her party.

Faced with this decision, the manager told her that she either stayed, or signed a piece of paper, the content of which she did not explain. In a hurry to leave, the claimant signed without realizing that she was signing her resignation, which she would never have done without being sure of another job, given her obligations.

Having reviewed the facts, the Board of Referees was justified in determining that the claimant did not choose to leave her employment voluntarily, but was compelled. In the circumstances, the Board could even have added that the resignation forced from the claimant was equivalent to a disguised dismissal.

However, relying on the testimony of the claimant, the Board chose to conclude that her leaving met the requirements of section 29(c)(xiii), which states that "just cause for voluntarily leaving an employment... exists" where there is "undue pressure by an employer on the claimant to leave their employment."

There is no doubt that in the circumstances described, the employer's inducement of the claimant to sign her resignation constituted undue pressure to leave her employment within the meaning of the Act.

The Board could just as well have concluded that the claimant was justified in leaving, because the overtime that led to her loss of employment was excessive and constituted just cause for voluntarily leaving, under section 29(c)(iii).

Consequently, the Commission's appeal is dismissed.

M. E. Lagacé

UMPIRE

Ottawa, Ontario
April 13, 2007