IN THE MATTER of the UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT, 1971
- and -
IN THE MATTER of a claim by
SALEH KHALID
- and -
IN THE MATTER of an appeal to an Umpire by the claimant
from a decision by the Board of Referees given on
January 7, 1988 at Mississauga, Province of Ontario
CORRESPONDING FEDERAL COURT DECISION: A-337-89
DECISION
ROULEAU, J.
The claimant appeals the unanimous decision of the Board of Referees who upheld the determination of the Insurance Officer that he was not entitled to benefits as he had not proven availability for work pursuant to sections 25(a) and 36 of theUnemployment Insurance Act.
The claimant had been laid off from his position on August 14, 1987 because of a shortage of work; he attended at the offices of the Commission and filed for benefits on August 19, 1987. As a result of a direction to report on October 28, 1987, he attended at the offices of the Commission, was interviewed and submitted a list of job searches. During the course of the interview, he suggested to the officer of the Commission "there is no sense accepting work any place else as I have to wait and return to work at my previous employers as of December 2, 1987". This statement was signed by the claimant.
As a result of the interview, a Notice of Disentitlement dated November 19, 1987 was forwarded to Mr. Khalid advising him that the benefits were suspended as of October 28. Upon receipt of the Notice of Disentitlement, the claimant was in touch by telephone with the officers of the Commission and on both November 24 and November 25 indicated that he was searching for work since he would not be resuming his former employment until December 21, 1987. He further confirmed during these telephone conversations, which are part of the contents of the file, that he was available for work.
He subsequently advised the Commission that he denied having made the statement on the date of the interview, October 28, 1987, and reiterated his affirmation that he was prepared to accept any work.
Before the Board of Referees on January 7, 1988, it accepted the position taken by the Commission and it was satisfied that the claimant, having signed the initial statement of conversation of October 28, should remain suspended.
I am of the view that the imposition of a suspension as of October 28 was perfectly legitimate and could be substantiated by way of the October 28 statement; nevertheless, it is obvious from the contents of the file, which recorded telephone conversations on November 24 and 25, 1987, that at that stage the claimant realized that he was in some difficulty; he further realized that there would be some delay in returning to his job in late December 1987; further, he affirmed to the officers of the Commission that he was available for work and prepared to accept any position until such time as his former employer would recall him. There is also evidence on file that, as of the date of the interview on October 28, the claimant brought with him an extended list of job searches.
I am satisfied that both the Commission and Board of Referees should have reinstated the claimant as at November 25, 1987. As of that date, he realized the difficulty caused by the statement of October 28; he affirmed his willingness and availability to work and has satisfied me, and the facts contained in the file support the contention, that he was continuing his job search and was available to accept work.
I uphold part of the decision of the Board of Referees and maintain the suspension as at October 28, 1987; nevertheless, I am restoring benefits to the claimant as at November 25, 1987 until such time as he returned to work.
"P. ROULEAU"
UMPIRE
OTTAWA, Ontario
June 9, 1989