| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
court judgments or out-of-court settlements |
|
|
Summary:
I was invited to defer making a decision until claimant's appeal to Human Rights had been decided. Indeed, in the final analysis, the question is whether claimant was or was not sexually or otherwise harassed. I think it would constitute a declining of jurisdiction by an Umpire.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
natural justice |
free of bias |
|
Summary:
It is of the utmost importance that the Board not only be impartial but give the appearance of being impartial. This means that if there is any "friendly chatter" or "small talk", it must be with both parties present and involved in the conversation.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
harassment |
generalities |
Summary:
The question the Board had to address was not whether claimant pursued all avenues open to her, but rather whether pursuing avenues open to her was a reasonable alternative to leaving. It had a duty to explain why a further pursuit of avenues under the policy were reasonable alternatives to leaving.
I was invited to defer making a decision until claimant's appeal to Human Rights had been decided. Indeed, in the final analysis, the question is whether claimant was or was not sexually or otherwise harassed. I think it would constitute a declining of jurisdiction by an Umpire.
