Summary of Issue: Significant Change In Duties

Decision 76279 Full Text of Decision 76279

The claimant, who had been in sanitation with the company for a period of time was moved from sanitation to night packaging. These duties were different because he had to switch to a different department. He stated that both the salary and the hours were less and he felt he would get a decrease of $2.00 per hour, but in fact, it was $1.25. The claimant lost his job because he was bumped from it by another employee under the collective agreement. Night packaging was his only alternative, even though he was not trained in that department. The claimant did not try his new position; he was annoyed and decided to quit. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed.

Decision A-0811.99 Full Text of Decision A-0811.99

The decision of the BOR, upheld by the Umpire, found that that claimant had voluntarily left his employment, but at the same time, recognized that this departure was the result of a misunderstanding. The FCA decided that neither the BOR nor the Umpire asked whether the claimant had actually left his employment and, if so, whether the termination of employment was voluntary. Case returned to the BOR for re-determination.

Decision 46426 Full Text of Decision 46426

See summary indexed under FCA A-0811.99

Decision 39752 Full Text of Decision 39752

Employed as a truck driver. The offer to permit claimant to work in town loading and delivering loads or to be allowed to go on the spare board is clearly a significant change in work duties within the provision of section 28(4)(i).

Decision 36789 Full Text of Decision 36789

The key word in par. 28(4)i) is "significant". A mere change of work duties will not trigger the application of that section. Significant here means something of import - something above the normal. The change imposed upon the claimant from a state of no physical work to heavy manual labour with the option of having that labour performed at his expense is a change of work of import and is a manifestation of change beyond the normal.

Decision 36391 Full Text of Decision 36391

Claimant demoted with hours reduced from full time to 14 hours per week. It was found that rather than dismiss the claimant, the employer had decided to marginalize her position. The claimant had no choice but to quit under the circumstances.

Decision 30652 Full Text of Decision 30652

Claimant employed as a storekeeper/messman for C.P.Rail for 11 years; sharing f/t position with a co-worker, each on a p/t basis. Position reclassified to be performed by 1 on a f/t basis and primarily janitorial duties. Employer unilaterally and fundamentally changed the conditions of employment.

Decision 29458 Full Text of Decision 29458

Claimant bumped by senior employee. Exercising the option under Collective Agreement, re-assignment declined and claimant laid-off. Not to be characterized as vol. Not intended that Act should override provisions of an agreement between employer/employee

Decision 28360 Full Text of Decision 28360

Worked 6 years in hospital from 7:00 a.m. to 3:15 p.m. Shift hours changed, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. to improve service to patients. Little effort to make other arrangements. No evidence she sought other work before leaving. The change of shifts was not a significant change in work duties.