Employment Insurance (EI)

Persons in attendance

Ms. K. K., the Claimant attended the hearing.

Decision

[1] The Tribunal finds that a disqualification should be imposed on the Claimant because she failed to prove she voluntarily left her employment without just cause.

Form of hearing

[2] On September 29, 2013 the Claimant made an initial claim for employment insurance benefits. On January 16, 2014 the Canada Employment Insurance Commission (Commission) disqualified the Claimant from receiving regular employment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without just cause. On January 23, 2014 the Claimant made a request for reconsideration. On April 7, 2014 the Commission maintained its original decision and the Claimant appealed to the Tribunal.

Form of hearing

[3] After reviewing the evidence and submissions of the parties to the appeal, the Tribunal decided on an in-person hearing for the reasons provided in the Notice of Hearing dated August 15, 2014.

Issue

[4] The Tribunal must decide whether a disqualification should be imposed pursuant to sections 29 and 30 of the Employment Insurance Act (the Act) because the Claimant voluntarily left her employment without just cause.

The law

[5] Subsection 29 (c) of the Act states that just cause for voluntarily leaving an employment or taking leave from an employment exists if the claimant had no reasonable alternative to leaving or taking leave, having regards to all the circumstances. Subsection 30 (1) of the Act provides for an indefinite disqualification when the claimant voluntarily leaves his employment without just cause.

Evidence

[6] A record of employment indicates the Claimant was employed with Inland Steel Products Inc. from September 24, 1990 to September 27, 2013 when she voluntarily left her employment.

[7] The employer’s representative stated to the Commission during the interview process the Claimant left because the company had gone into the 21st century and it was too much for the Claimant. The business started to pick up fast and they had to make some changes. He stated changing from Quick Books 2005 to 2013 was overwhelming for the Claimant.

[8] The employer’s representative stated to the Commission during the interview process that a leave of absences for medical or family issues would be allowed and that the company has a short and long term disability program for the employees.

Submissions

[10] The Claimant submitted that:

1. She believes each case is different and should be treated as such;
2. She worked for this private office for over 23 years and developed a very close- family like feeling with the owner but when the son returned to take over the company she could not handle the stress this brought to her;
3. The son was changing the way everything had been done;
4. After many sleepless nights she felt the option was to quit;
5. She had a personality conflict with the owners son;
6. It was a private office and there were no other departments to transfer to;
7. She felt the only option she had was to quit and telling the owner that it was either her or the son wasn’t an option;
8. She didn’t have any formal discussions with the owner but tried to explain a few times how she was feeling but she didn’t think he really understood what she was saying as he responded for her to just hang in there;
9. After a few months the business continued to grow and the operations of the business were changing fast;
10. She didn’t look for another job because she was so busy and stressed while working and after she left felt she needed some personal time to get her thoughts and goals figured out;
11. There are not specific examples of the conflict, and the owner’s son never demeaned or badmouthed her, it was the way he acted, he was arrogant and would come into the office acting like he ran the show. She felt the son needed to earn her respect;
12. She didn’t want to quit, she was making a $100,000.00 a year but she wasn’t happy and she didn’t want to put the owner in a difficult position;
13. When she gave her notice the owner was shocked and asked her to take the weekend to think about it, however she felt the owner’s son was there for good and she couldn’t see things getting better so she maintained her decision to leave. She offered to stay on until they could find a replacement, however the following Wednesday the owner told her she was done and to make up her final pay cheque;
14. She didn’t request sick leave because she was the only one in the office and there would be no one to replace her and that she wasn’t the type of person who would go on a stress leave; and
15. She disagrees with the statements made by the employer’s representative that she was having issues moving into the 21st century, or that she was having trouble with the changing of QuickBooks. This is simply not true.

[11] The Respondent submitted that:

1. The Claimant quit her employment because of the stress she was experiencing over the vice president of operation’s personality and changes in the workplace;
2. The Claimant had reasonable alternatives available to her to remain in the employment until new, more favorable work was secured or to specifically address her concerns with the employer in an attempt to find a resolution or manage the changes;
3. The Commission considered the Claimant’s statement the company was drastically changing however there is nothing to show there was a significant change in the Claimant’s duties. It appears she maintained the same role within the company but the way she did things may have shifted; and
4. The Claimant has not shown she exhausted all reasonable alternatives to leaving her employment.

Analysis

[12] The Tribunal must decide whether the Claimant should be disqualified pursuant to sections 29 and 30 of the Act because she voluntarily left his job without just cause. Under subsection 30 (1) of the Act, an employee is disqualified for receiving EI benefits if she loses her job as a result of misconduct, or voluntarily leaves her job without just cause. Subsection 29 (c) of the Act provides that an employee will have just cause by leaving a job if this is no reasonable alternative to leaving taking into account a list of enumerated circumstances, including, at paragraph 29 (c) (ix) significant changes in work duties. The test to be applied, having regard to all the circumstances, is whether the Claimant had a reasonable alternative to leaving her employment when she did.

[13] There is no dispute that the Claimant quit her job and the burden of proof is on the Claimant to prove that she had no reasonable alternatives to leave when she did.

[14] The Claimant presents the argument that she was experiencing a personality conflict with the vice president of the company, who was the owner’s son. She provided oral evidence that she had worked for Inland Steel Products for over 23 years. She stated that over the years she had developed a very close relationship with the owner and the other long time staff and they were like a family. However when the owner’s son returned to take over the company everything changed. In her oral evidence the Claimant stated that over the years the son would be employed on and off, and would come and go and when he was around the environment in the office would suffer. The Claimant stated that this time when he returned it was permanent and his father, the owner, had given the son full reign. The Claimant testified that when the son returned things in the workplace began to change. He started to change the way things had been done for years. She testified it was one girl office and she was it, and the owner trusted her to run the operation of the office. She stated when the son took over as vice president, he began to oversee the office work and she felt she was being micromanaged. She stated she had always been given full trust of running the office but now she was feeling he was not respecting her. She provided oral evidence that it was a personality conflict that caused her the stress and unhappiness in the workplace and not the changes in the work flow of the business. She provided oral evidence that there were no specific incidents to relate, but it was the overall way the owner’s son acted. He was very arrogant and acted like he ran the show. She testified she disagreed with the statements made by the employer’s representative. She was capable of moving into the 21st century and preforming the changes in the way the business was being run now. She provided oral evidence that she felt it was the owner’s son who was causing her problems and that he was there to stay and take over the company things were not going to change and therefore she could no longer work there. She testified she had a great deal of respect for the owner and did not want to put him in a position to make a choice, and if she did, she knew what the choice would be. She felt her own health and well-being was more important and she needed to leave.

[15] In this case, the Tribunal sympathies with the Claimant’s situation. To work for a company in a job that she loved and a work environment that had been pleasant for 23 years to then change to one where she felt compelled to quit because of a personality conflict, is extremely unfortunate. However personal reasons to not provide a claimant with just cause for leaving employment. The Tribunal must apply the test of whether the Claimant had a reasonable alternative to leaving her employment when she did. The Act imposes a duty on the claimant not to deliberately cause the risk of unemployment to occur. A claimant who has voluntarily left her employment and has not found other employment is only justified in acting in this way if, at the time she left, the circumstances existed which excused her from thus taking the risk of causing other to bear the burden of her unemployment. A claimant is responsible to exhaust all reasonable alternatives prior to placing themselves in a position of unemployment. The Tribunal finds in this case the Claimant did have reasonable alternatives to her that she did not exhaust. The Tribunal finds the Claimant could have had formal discussions with the owner of the company to find an amicable solution to the problem. The Tribunal acknowledges the situation the Claimant was experiencing was one that would have involved a strain on the owner and his family however the Tribunal does not find any evidence exists to prove the owner of the company was unapproachable to the point where the Claimant could not have discussed the seriousness of the situation between herself and the owners son. The Claimant’s oral evidence supports that in the 23 years of employment she had a very good relationship with the owner. The Tribunal finds from the evidence in the file and the Claimant’s oral evidence that she never made any attempts to speak with the owner’s son to discuss the stress and unhappiness in the workplace she was experiencing. The facts in the file indicate the owner’s son now was in charge of the company operations and may have been able to provide a solution or perhaps a discussion could have led to more respectful working relationship.

[16] The Claimant presents the argument that the stress of the personality conflict she was experiencing was causing her sleepless nights and having a negative impact on her personal life. In her oral evidence the Claimant stated she never thought about taking a stress leave or a leave of absence. She stated she wasn’t the type of person to do that. The Tribunal again sympathies with the Claimant’s situation, and although she felt quitting was her only option, she did have other alternatives to her. The Tribunal finds the Claimant could have sought medical advice and upon the advice of her doctor, took some time off to recover and or take the time to find a solution to her situation. The evidence in the file support the Claimant would have been granted a leave of absence and would have been able to access the short and long term disability program offered by the company.

[17] The Claimant presents the argument that she never looked for work prior to leaving because she was too stressed, busy and she didn’t think that she would quit. The Tribunal finds from the Claimant’s oral evidence that she loved her job and that it had been very pleasurable until the owners son returned. She testified that over the 23 years the owner’s son would be hired to work during the summer and that he would be hired and fired several times over the years. The work atmosphere would be negatively impacted whenever the owner’s son was around. She stated this went on for several years and then he came back permanently. The Claimant testified that the workplace deteriorated when the owner’s son was put in charge and that was the way it was going to stay. The Tribunal finds the situation extremely unfortunate, but the evidence supports the Claimant did not look for alternate employment. The Tribunal finds from the Claimant’s oral evidence that although the personality conflict was horrible, she did not provide any evidence to support the workplace was so intolerable that she had to leave when she did. In fact, she testified there were no specific incidents or times when the owner’s son would yell at her bad mouth or demean her, she just didn’t approve of his arrogance or the way he acted as if he ran the show. The Claimant presented oral evidence she didn’t really want to quit but she knew that because he was the owner’s son, there was no sense in providing the owner with an ultimatum. The Tribunal finds from the Claimant’s oral evidence that she didn’t stay employed and seek alternate employment because she felt she needed some personal time for her to deal with her stress and determine what her future options were. The Tribunal does not dispute the Claimant may have felt this to be a good cause, it does not meet the test of just cause within the meaning of the Act. The evidence supports the Claimant had tolerated the owner’s son’s behavior for years and the Tribunal finds there is no evidence to support the situation was so intolerable that she could not have remained working until she found suitable employment.

[18] The Claimant presents the argument that there were significant changes in work duties. The Claimant provided oral evidence that it was one girl office and that she was responsible for the day to day operations. She stated the owner trusted her completely. She provided oral evidence that the owner’s son began to change the way things were done like shipping, invoicing and other operations of the company. The Tribunal finds that although the Claimant may not have agreed with these changes, she provided earlier testimony that she was quite capable of handling the changes. The Tribunal finds there is no evidence to support that there were significant changes in the Claimant’s duties. From her own testimony she could handle the changes, she just couldn’t handle the personality conflict between herself and the owner’s son.

[19] The Claimant presented several arguments however the Tribunal does not find sufficient evidence to support the Claimant exhausted all reasonable alternatives available to her and that the Claimant acted as a reasonable and prudent person in her situation would have. The Tribunal finds the Claimant had reasonable alternatives available to her that she chose not to exhaust and therefore did not have just cause for voluntarily leaving her employment. The Tribunal finds subsection 30 (1) of the Act an indefinite disqualification be imposed because the Claimant voluntarily left his employment without just cause.

[20] The Tribunal relies on Landry A-1210-92 where the Court concluded that it is not sufficient for the claimant to prove she was reasonable in leaving her employment, but rather the claimant must prove that after considering all of the circumstances she had no reasonable alternative but to leave her employment.

Conclusion