Summary of Issue: Harassment

Decision A238.17 Full Text of Decision A238.17

The SST-General Division found that the claimant was not entitled to receive EI benefits as she left her employment without just cause because there were reasonable alternatives open to her that she ought to have taken before resigning. The SST-Appeal Division was empowered to set the SST-General Division's decision aside only if it found the latter to have failed to observe a principle of natural justice, erred in law or based its decision on an erroneous finding of fact made in a perverse or capricious manner without regard to the material before it. The SST-Appeal Division held that none of the forgoing could be said of the decision of the General Division. It was determined that the SST-Appeal Division's decision was reasonable . The application for judicial review was therefore dismissed.

Decision A0469.11 Full Text of Decision A0469.11

The claimant left her employment due to harassment by her employer. The Commission approved her application for EI benefits, finding she had just cause for leaving her employment. The employer appealed the Commission’s decision. The Umpire found the BOR’s decision to be reasonable. The Umpire found the BOR did not breach any principle of procedural fairness by refusing to admit irrelevant evidence produced by the employer. The FCA dismissed the employer’s application, finding that the emails were irrelevant to the issue before the BOR and that there was no breach of procedural fairness. l

Decision 27937 Full Text of Decision 27937

It was essential to a fair hearing that not only the Board, but the appellant (employer) have access to the 30-page document which was prepared by claimant. ss. 79(1.1) does not deal with the admissibility of the 30-page document. Words "by the public" as found in 79(1.1) emphasized by Umpire.

Decision 74918 Full Text of Decision 74918

The claimant decides to voluntarily leave her employment without looking for another job. She states that following her complaint of harassment to the employer, he made her life miserable until he finally told her to quit her job. The employer states that she quit following a meeting with her supervisor and the president of the company held in order to assess the adaptation problems she was encountering. The employer asked her to prepare a list of suggestions to improve her performance and eliminate frictions in the office with the drivers who were getting the best of her. She was also reminded of the resources and support systems in place to her for better duties' performance. Despite what had been agreed the claimant never again showed up for work. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed.

Decision 73334 Full Text of Decision 73334

The issue in the present appeal is whether or not the claimant voluntarily left her employment without just cause. In her claim for benefits the claimant stated she had been dismissed but then gave the following explanation: ¿During my employment I faced sexual harassment and discrimination from the manager. The owner constructively dismissed me when he required that I sign a document that I had not experienced harassment as a condition of my continuing to work. When I refused to sign the document I was threatened with litigation and had to retain services of Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario Counsel. The Commission contacted the employer for its version of events, but not having received a reply by December 19, 2008, wrote to the employer to advice that it was approving the claimant's claim for benefit. An appeal to the Umpire was filed by the employer claiming that the Board had made an erroneous finding of fact. The employer then filed a series of documents which had never been placed before the Board of Referees and therefore will not be considered in the present appeal. The employer's appeal to the Umpire is dismissed.

Decision 64723 Full Text of Decision 64723

The claimant's employment involved making telephone calls for a collection service. He was subjected to harassing language in the form of abusive racial comments from some of the clients - this was stressful and affecting his family life. The Judge stated that the claimant could have discussed his concerns with his employer but he chose to leave instead. He concluded that there was no evidence to show that the stress suffered by the claimant from the harassment at work had become so unbearable as to leave him with no choice but to quit when he did.

Decision A-0472.03 Full Text of Decision A-0472.03

The claimant was disqualified for leaving her employment, claiming she was harassed. The Court stated that, under subsection 49(2) of the Act, the benefit of the doubt would only apply in favour of a claimant, where the evidence on each side is equally balanced. The Court found that this rule of evidence cannot apply as it was clear there were reasonable alternatives open to the claimant before leaving her employment.

Decision 58193 Full Text of Decision 58193

Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0472.03

Decision A-0448.96 Full Text of Decision A-0448.96

Claimant left her employment stating that she was subjected to harassment and that there was a deterioration of employer-employee relations beyond repair. The Umpire found that the claimant was partly responsible for the antagonistic relations and refused to interfere with the BOR conclusion. The FCA determined however that the Umpire had not explicitly addressed the question of harassment and returned the matter back for determination.

Decision 31992 Full Text of Decision 31992

The BOR erred when it concluded that falsely accusing an employee of theft did not amount to harassment. Surely making an irritating/annoying comment which is known to be false amounts to harassment within the meaning of the U.I. Act.

Decision 26973 Full Text of Decision 26973

Refer to: A-0133.95

Decision A-0133.95 Full Text of Decision A-0133.95

The claimant's attorney argued that harassment of a sexual nature was part of the "general situation" and justified her departure. However, the claimant hastened to add that she couldn't say that there "was harassment as such". Argument rejected. The FCA agrees.

Decision 24365A Full Text of Decision 24365A

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.

Decision 25005 Full Text of Decision 25005

The Commission raises another issue: whether sexual harassment by clients (in the case of a taxi driver) and not the employer is contemplated under para. 28(4)(a). I am not satisfied that I want to deal with the issue raised by the Commission which is unnecessary to the resolution of this appeal.

Decision 22020 Full Text of Decision 22020

Harassment under 28(4)(a) must be constituted by an act or acts of the employer which are directed to the employee personally. Conditions which affect all employees, and references to possible consequences under the UI Act, whether right or wrong, do not constitute harassment by the employer.

Decision 21676 Full Text of Decision 21676

Working for an unreasonable boss is not as per a long line of jurisprudence just cause. However new 28(4)(a) evidently is not limited to sexual harassment. Here the immediate employer went far beyond being unpleasant or difficult to work with and had definitely harassed her.