CUB 22307

IN THE MATTER OF the Unemployment Insurance Act

- and -

IN THE MATTER OF a claim for benefits by

JASON J. SROCHENSKI

- and -

IN THE MATTER OF an appeal to an umpire by the claimant from the

decision of the Board of Referees given at Regina, Province of

Saskatchewan, on 14 May 1992.

DECISION

NOËL, J.

Claimant appeals a majority decision of the Board of Referees reducing a disqualification period from nine weeks to seven weeks, but otherwise holding that claimant left his employment without just cause.

Claimant had been employed by the Pasqua Hospital where he worked in the laundry service. Upon being laid off, he initiated a claim for benefits and, at the same time, actively pursued employment opportunities in Alberta. He quickly found and accepted employment with an oil drilling company in Northern Alberta. On his very first day at the job, he became terrified and concerned about his safety. While he was not assigned to work on high platforms, as he was scared of heights, his first assignment was to clear the roof of a site building which he found quite high. After one half-day of work, he quit his job. Claimant testified that he did not report this temporary employment because he did not expect to be paid for it. According to his employer, he was given a cheque of $59.20 for his half-day effort.

In his observations, claimant states that the position was not suitable for him, that he was hired and accepted the employment too quickly and without knowledge of the working conditions.

The Board, in its majority decision, found that while claimant was not suited for work at the oil rigs, this did not constitute "just cause" for leaving the job.

The dissenting opinion recognizes that the disqualification is warranted in law, but holds that the Commission should have exercised its discretion to ignore the disqualification in the circumstances of this case.

Subsection 28(l) of the Act provides that:

It is a fact, as claimant alleges, that subsection 27(2) allows a claimant to refuse alternative employment, as unsuitable, if the working conditions are less favourable than he or she is accustomed to. It is also clear, based on the facts of this case, that claimant would have had good grounds for refusing employment on the oil rigs as an alternative to his prior employment in the Pasqua Hospital laundry service under subsection 27(2).

However, subsection 27(2) is not in issue here. What is in issue is whether the claimant, after having accepted employment at the oil rigs, had just cause for leaving his job by reason of the fact that the working conditions turned out to be unacceptable to him. It is unfortunate that claimant accepted the employment at the oil rigs without knowing more about the working conditions, but, having done so, he could not leave it voluntarily without being subject to disqualification.

With respect to the overpayments, as pointed out by the majority decision, the Board or for that matter the Umpire have no authority to reduce overpayments by reason of special circumstances. Only the Commission possesses this discretion and, that being so, it would be inappropriate for the Board or the Umpire to purport to make a determination as to how this discretion should be exercised.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

OTTAWA, Ontario

5 January 1993