IN THE MATTER OF the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
- and -
IN THE MATTER OF a claim for benefit by
Francis W. IRELAND
- and -
IN THE MATTER OF an appeal to an Umpire by the claimant
from the decision of the Board of Referees given at
Gander, Newfoundland, October 10, 1986.
DECISION
MARTIN, J.
The claimant, Francis W. Ireland, appeals the decision of a Board of Referees affirming the determination of an Insurance Officer disqualifying him from receiving unemployment insurance benefits for a period of three weeks because he left his employment without just cause within the meaning of sections 41 and 43 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971.
The claimant had a long but unhappy career with the Newfoundland Liquor Corporation from which service he was either dismissed or resigned in June of 1986. He had acted as manager of the corporation's retail stores at Gander, Mount Pearl and Lewisporte and, according to the information obtained by telephone from the personnel director of the corporation, he was a constant source of trouble and irritation.
A few weeks prior to the loss of his employment with the corporation he, recognizing that there were difficulties, decided to and did submit his resignation subject to certain conditions. The corporation did not meet the conditions but seized on the resignation and told him to remove himself from its premises.
Because of the importance of the terms of his letter of resignation it would have been helpful to have had a copy of it in evidence. The claimant realized this before the Board's hearing but had been unable to obtain a copy from the employer. He advised the Commission of this difficulty on September 11, 1986 in the following terms:
"I believe some details given in my statement, when I first filed for unemployment benefits were not fully understood. I think the matter could be cleared up if you read a copy of my resignation which would support my statement and give you a clearer picture of what happened. However, I do no have a copy of my resignation and my exemployer will not give me a copy. I understand the onus is on me to get this information, but as I have been unable to, I respectively request your help in obtaining the letter of resignation."
There is nothing in the record to indicate that the Commission took any action on this request and the letter was not available at the Board's hearing.
Following the Board's decision the claimant renewed his request to the corporation and requested as well copies of any documentation in his personal file upon which the corporation relied to support the serious charges made against him by the personnel director in her telephone conversation with the Commission's staff. This request was also refused by the personnel director.
I find it strange indeed that the personnel director, who apparently had no hesitation in telling the Commission's staff about the claimant's emotional problems, psychiatric care, general incompetence, problems with staff involving harassment charges, and customer complaints relating to his behaviour, could not let the claimant have a copy of his own letter of resignation.
However the claimant need not be prejudiced by this lack of evidence for the Commission has accepted, in its written observations to the Board, the essence of it, when it observed
"Mr. Ireland tendered his resignation with certain conditions. Even though these conditions were not met by the employer the actual severance of the employer, employee relationship was initiated by Mr. Ireland."
Thus the Commission has recognized that the resignation was a conditional resignation the conditions attached to which were not met by the employer. In my view a conditional resignation is not a resignation which can be accepted unless, at the same time, the conditions are accepted as well. The corporation was not entitled to accept the claimant's resignation and reject the conditions. When it purported to do so and instructed the claimant to vacate his office it terminated the claimant's employment by means of a dismissal. While the claimant's conditional letter of resignation may have initiated the events which resulted in his loss of employment, it cannot be said, under the circumstances of this case, that he voluntarily left his employment.
The Board misinterpreted the effect of a conditional resignation when it found that the claimant voluntarily left his employment and thus erred in law. Under the circumstances, and pursuant to section 96 of the Act, I may consider the claimant's case and give the decision the Board should have given. In this respect I find that the claimant submitted a conditional resignation to the employer and that because the employer did not accept the conditions which would give effect to the resignation the claimant cannot be said to have thereby voluntarily left his employment.
It follows that the claimant's appeal is allowed and the disqualification is rescinded.
(Leonard A. Martin)
UMPIRE
OTTAWA, Ontario
July 9, 1987