A truck driver who quit his job after repeated conflicts with dispatch over work assignments has been denied employment insurance benefits, with a federal tribunal ruling he had reasonable alternatives to leaving his position.
The Social Security Tribunal of Canada dismissed R.D.’s appeal, finding he voluntarily left his job without just cause despite his claims of harassment and unsafe working conditions.
The dispute
R.D. worked as a bunk haul truck driver until August 1, 2024, when he submitted his resignation after being assigned in-town work instead of the long-haul routes he preferred. He applied for EI benefits, arguing he was forced to quit due to harassment from dispatch, unsafe working conditions, and what he claimed was constructive dismissal.
The Canada Employment Insurance Commission denied his claim, determining he voluntarily left without just cause.
R.D. argued he “was constantly being harassed and placed in an unsafe work environment” and that dispatch provided him “with shifts that included in town work and paid less money.” He said he “was hired to work only bunk or long haul work” and claimed the changes to his duties amounted to constructive dismissal.
He also complained that “his shifts would be changed last minute without any prior notification,” which impacted his pay.
Tribunal’s findings on voluntary departure
The tribunal first addressed whether R.D. voluntarily left his job. R.D. initially claimed he was terminated by his HR manager, but under questioning, he admitted he submitted his resignation to a staff member after becoming frustrated with another in-town assignment.
“He told me that he was frustrated as dispatch had again assigned him in-town work. He was frustrated by this and submitted his resignation,” the tribunal member wrote. “He thought in doing this, that R. (the HR manager) would reach out to him to try to fix the problem. Instead R. sent him an email acknowledging his resignation and advising that he would not need to work his two weeks for the notice period.”
The tribunal found R.D. had other options available. “He could have continued working or he could have spoken to management about problems with dispatch. Instead he resigned. He had other choices available to him and as such he voluntarily left his employment.”
Just cause analysis
The tribunal then examined whether R.D. had just cause for leaving, which requires proving he had “no reasonable alternative to quitting” when he did.
Unsafe working conditions
R.D. claimed dispatch asked him to work longer than 15 hours per day or more than five days in a row, violating road safety policies. However, the tribunal found this claim unsupported.
“During the oral hearing the Appellant noted that on one occasion dispatch implied in a request that he work longer than 15 hours,” the decision states. “The Appellant refused this request and nothing further came of it.”
The tribunal concluded: “I am not satisfied that this action by the employer resulted in placing the Appellant into an unsafe work condition.”
Constructive dismissal claim
R.D. argued his employer unilaterally changed his employment terms by assigning him in-town work instead of exclusively long-haul routes, constituting constructive dismissal.
The tribunal acknowledged his belief but found the changes insufficient to establish just cause. “On a very few occasions, the Appellant was requested to work in town. This does not amount to a significant change.”
The tribunal noted R.D. had reasonable alternatives, including speaking to human resources about the in-town assignments and refusing such shifts, as he had done previously.
Harassment allegations
R.D. claimed he felt “constantly harassed by Dispatch” through regular shift changes and assignment of shorter routes instead of the long-haul work he was hired to perform.
When experiencing problems with dispatch, R.D. would report issues to a manager named T., who was also a driver. “The Appellant told me that T. would conduct investigations and that T. would confirm that dispatch was in the wrong. The Appellant told me that he was generally satisfied with T.’s investigations.”
Despite ongoing issues, R.D. took no additional steps to address the harassment. When asked if he had contacted the Workers’ Compensation Board or Employment Standards, “the Appellant told me that he had not done so.”
He also had not applied for alternative employment before quitting.
Available alternatives
The tribunal found R.D. had several reasonable alternatives to quitting, including:
- Speaking to his employer about dispatch issues
- Contacting external government agencies about his concerns
- Looking for other work before quitting
- Filing complaints with Employment Standards or WCB
- Continuing to work with manager T. on resolving disputes
“Up until August 1, 2024, the Appellant had no intentions of leaving his employment because he was satisfied with the work,” the decision notes. His resignation came impulsively after being assigned another in-town run.
Tribunal’s jurisdiction
The tribunal clarified it has no authority to determine whether dismissals are justified or penalties too severe, noting courts have confirmed the tribunal “is not the appropriate place to deal with allegations of wrongful dismissals, the employer’s conduct or the reasonableness of a work policy.”
For voluntary departures, “the only test under the Act is whether or not he had just cause.”
The tribunal suggested R.D. may have “other legal avenues” to pursue if he believes his employer dismissed him without cause.
The tribunal dismissed R.D.’s appeal, finding he is disqualified from receiving EI benefits because he voluntarily left his job without just cause.
For more information, see RD v Canada Employment Insurance Commission, 2025 SST 216 (CanLII).
