A worker who quit his job after just three shifts — citing a toxic working environment and lack of proper PPE — is not entitled to receive Employment Insurance (EI) benefits. The Social Security Tribunal of Canada ruled that the employee, W.C., voluntarily left his job mid-shift without “just cause.”
W.C. applied for EI benefits shortly afterward. The Canada Employment Insurance Commission determined he had quit voluntarily, and the tribunal agreed, noting there was “no evidence that the employer forced him to quit.”
Alleged inappropriate comments, safety risks
W.C. argued the workplace was intolerable, alleging co-workers made inappropriate comments. According to his testimony, one colleague asked if they “look like a pygmy” and another told him they thought his friend was a “whore.”
A third reportedly said, “We’re not going to work here,” looking at him and smirking. He maintained that these incidents disturbed him and constituted harassment. He also stated that he witnessed other employees acting unprofessionally by singing and dancing on the job, not wearing personal protective equipment (PPE), and playing repetitive music over the public address system, all of which made him anxious.
Definition of harassment
The tribunal weighed whether W.C. had experienced harassment under the law. It referred to the standard that harassment generally involves “behaviour that persists over time” or a “serious one-time” incident linked to discrimination, intimidation, or unwanted physical contact.
While acknowledging the comments were “strangely and unprofessionally” delivered, the tribunal found “the incidents … don’t amount to harassment, unfortunately,” since they appeared to be isolated. Moreover, the tribunal noted W.C. did not show any evidence that the remarks were tied to a protected ground of discrimination or that they occurred repeatedly.
Sexual harassment?
W.C. also said he witnessed what he considered sexual harassment toward younger female employees. However, the tribunal found no concrete proof that those interactions were “unwelcome” or “unwanted.”
A supervisor reportedly told him that “those employees didn’t mind that talk with each other,” suggesting to the tribunal that these conversations were “friendly and consensual.” In the tribunal’s view, W.C. was unable to demonstrate that any female employees felt harassed.
PPE usage and safety concerns
Regarding unsafe working conditions, W.C. insisted he was the only one wearing a hard hat, contrary to workplace rules. He also described an incident where a beam fell near a co-worker and ongoing horseplay among some employees.
While the tribunal acknowledged the beam incident could have been alarming, it concluded that it appeared isolated and did not threaten W.C.’s own safety. His testimony indicated he “just tried to avoid other employees as much as possible and do his job,” suggesting there was no persistent threat that forced him to leave that moment.
Antagonism with supervisor
In another argument, W.C. alleged antagonism with a supervisor — claiming he said they “knew he would be the only problem when he started working.” W.C. admitted he became “mad” immediately after that remark. The tribunal recognized the supervisor’s comment as inappropriate, but it also noted evidence that W.C. escalated the situation by getting angry.
It found that any conflict that arose was at least partly attributable to W.C. himself, meaning he did not show antagonism that he “wasn’t primarily responsible for.” The tribunal also observed that W.C. had a second supervisor with whom he reported no antagonism at all.
Alternatives to resignation
Central to the tribunal’s analysis was whether W.C. had any “reasonable alternative” to quitting. Under the law, even if an employee has serious concerns, voluntary leaving without just cause exists when the individual could have reasonably pursued other options.
The tribunal identified two paths W.C. could have taken. First, it ruled he could have stayed on the job until finding alternative employment. Since his tenure was only three days, there was insufficient evidence of an environment so dire that “he had to quit immediately.”
Second, the tribunal pointed out that W.C. had contacted a head-office representative, referred to as J.W., but only after quitting. It found W.C. could have “emailed J.W. before he quit about his concerns and kept working until he heard back.” J.W. had previously emailed W.C. about safety procedures, which signalled — at least to the tribunal — that head office was accessible.
Through the decision, the tribunal emphasized the distinction between having “good reasons for leaving” and legally proving just cause.
“The Appellant may feel he had good reasons for quitting,” it wrote, “but this isn’t the same as having just cause.” The circumstances W.C. described — including rude comments, horseplay, and perceived managerial indifference — did not, in the tribunal’s view, meet the threshold of conditions so intolerable that no reasonable alternative existed.
Addressing references by the employer and the Commission to W.C.’s mental health, the tribunal clarified that his mental health “has nothing to do with why he stopped working.” While it acknowledged W.C. felt insulted by the suggestion, it declined to make it a factor in assessing just cause.
By finding W.C. had other options — such as following up with head office or staying employed until another role was secured — the tribunal held he did not meet the legal standard for just cause. As a result, the tribunal stated: “The appeal is dismissed,” confirming the Commission’s decision that W.C. was disqualified from receiving EI benefits.
For more information, see WC v Canada Employment Insurance Commission, 2024 SST 1484 (CanLII).
