CUB 68651

Hon. David G. Riche

The issue in this case was whether or not the claimant had just cause for voluntarily leaving her employment pursuant to sections 29 and 30 of the EI Act. The second issue was whether or not the claimant had sufficient hours to qualify for benefits since she had left her employment without just cause.

The Board of Referees found from the docket that the claimant had voluntarily left her employment on the 15^th of March, 2006. The reason she left was because she needed some time off due to the fact that she was burnt out. The Board pointed out that she was not advised by a doctor to leave her employment. The employer had agreed that the claimant should take some time off but the claimant decided to quit.

Following this employment the claimant then worked for another employer for 255 hours.

The Commission was of the view that the claimant had not exhausted all reasonable circumstances. They felt that the claimant should not have quit her job without any immediate opportunities for other work. The Commission's position was that the claimant should have taken a week off and tried to find a more suitable job.

The Commission also pointed out that since the claimant left her employment she needed 420 hours of insurable employment but had only accumulated 255 in accordance with subsec. 7(2) of the Act.

Before the Board of Referees the claimant stated that her job was stressful and that her duties had changed tremendously. She stated that she was hired to work in the shop with some cleaning duties; however, over the last year she became a full time cleaner. This the claimant also pointed out when she appeared before me that she had been hired as a shop maintenance person with some cleaning. This was shown in Exhibit 9-3.

The claimant also had an incident of sexual harassment but that was not why she left her employment.

The Board questioned the claimant with respect to the amount of work and she stated it depended on what contracts her employer had. She only usually worked eight hours a day but during this time she was doing work that should have been completed by two people.

She also advised that she had not gone to a doctor about her stress nor did she go to the Department of Labour concerning her working conditions.

The Board of Referees in their findings of fact and application of the law found that the claimant had not sought medical advice nor had she contacted Labour Standards. They also stated that she did not avail of time off period offered by her employer. And finally they noted that the claimant did not seek other employment prior to voluntarily leaving the job that she had.

For these reasons they determined that the claimant did not show just cause for voluntarily leaving her employment.

I have considered the evidence in this matter and I note from the finding by the Board of Referees that they appear to have not considered s. 29(ix) - significant changes in work duties.

There does not appear to be any doubt that the claimant's work turned out to be different over the year prior to her leaving than what it was when she was hired. Although the claimant did not quit her employment when this change took place, I am not satisfied that the claimant is not entitled to rely on this provision of the Act. In the evidence before the Board, it is clear that there was no dispute over the fact that the claimant's work duties changed substantially over the year prior to her leaving her employment. It is sometimes determined that significant changes in work duties take place usually in a short time. I do not feel, however, that that is necessarily a requirement to show just cause. The claimant in this case had tried to keep up with the work that she was given but was unable to carry it out. That was not the job that she was hired for. The employer knew that she was suffering from stress and he had offered her time off. He did not, however, change her work duties back to what they were when she was hired.

I have considered the circumstances and I am satisfied that the Board of Referees should have considered s. 29(c) of the Act to determine whether or not there were significant changes in work duties. That was, in my view, an error in law as they were required to apply s. 29 of the Act.

I am satisfied that the claimant's work duties changed significantly over the year prior to her quitting and it is my view that the claimant has provided just cause for quitting her employment when she did. The claimant pointed out that with her sister-in-law leaving she would have to do even more work and that appeared to be the straw that broke the camel's back.

For these reasons I am satisfied that the appeal of the claimant should be allowed as she has shown that she had just cause for voluntarily leaving her employment pursuant to s. 29(c)(ix) of the Act. The appeal of the claimant is therefore allowed.

With respect to the second issue, it is not necessary for me to deal with that issue, but if I had to, it is clear that the claimant did not have sufficient hours following her former employment. That, however, does not become an issue now that her appeal is allowed on the first issue.

David G. Riche

Umpire

July 31, 2007
St. John's, NL