Summary of Issue: Smoking Policy

Decision 68119 Full Text of Decision 68119

The employer's policy required employees to remain on the work premises during their breaks and the employer provided employees with a designated smoking area. There is nothing unusual or unreasonable about a policy of that nature but the claimant wanted to sit in her car (off premises) during her breaks. Under these circumstances, a reasonable person would have secured alternative employment before quitting her job and putting herself in the position of being unemployed. The claimant may believe that she had a good reason for leaving but it does not constitute just cause as required by the legislation.

Decision 24701 Full Text of Decision 24701

Left after 2 days. Suffers from asthma. Not on any specific allergy medication. Militantly against smoking. All the other 7 members of staff smoked. Claim filed in 9-91. Even if new 28(4)(d) were considered, it would not be applicable from an objective point of view.

Decision 21638 Full Text of Decision 21638

The Board erred in law in assuming that she could have no legitimate health reason for quitting unless she provided evidence that she was more susceptible to harm from second-hand smoke than other people and that she had to prove that it was specifically harmful to her. No designated area for smokers. Worked for 2 years in office where 7 out of 10 were heavy smokers. Had complained regularly. Her employer had taken no effective measures. Had applied for other work. Not obliged under 28(4)(d) to continue in this hazardous situation indefinitely.

Decision 11890 Full Text of Decision 11890

Sheet metal worker not allowed to smoke on the job. Left after one week. The Board felt that the policy was not an unreasonable request and imposed a one-week suspension. Finding not erroneous nor perverse.