IN THE MATTER OF the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
- and -
IN THE MATTER OF a claim by
Lorraine Fisher
- and -
IN THE MATTER OF an appeal to an Umpire by the claimant
from a decision of the Board of Referees given at
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, on May 6, 1992.
DECISION
STRAYER, J.
During a previously established benefit period, the appellant quit her part-time job with Doctor Plant Tropical Foliage in Saskatoon on March 21, 1991. It is not disputed that she only had about fifteen hours of work per week in this job and that was soon to be reduced to ten hours per week. Nor is it disputed that her car had a defective starter and she often had difficulty starting it. She was obliged to drive from place to place in Saskatoon. She was only being paid $5.25 an hour and she could not afford to have her starter repaired at that time.
The Commission concluded that she had voluntarily left her job without just cause and it imposed a disqualification period of nine weeks. The claimant appealed that decision and appeared before a Board of Referees with a representative.
While the Board of Referees does not state its findings of fact very clearly it appears to have accepted the facts as set out above. In the concluding paragraph of its decision it states:
The Board sympathizes with the claimant. It is a fact that prior to quitting her job there is no evidence that she was conducting a job search and keeping a record as is indicated in the Rights and Obligations. Due to financial circumstances and not being able to afford repairs to her vehicle, the Board feels extenuating circumstances existed and, therefore, the disqualification should be reduced to 7 weeks from 9 weeks. The appeal is allowed to that extent.
The claimant appeals from that decision invoking all possible grounds of appeal. In her written and oral submissions she pointed out that the Board seemed to have focused on whether she had done a job search before quitting and this was not the central issue. She was also concerned that the Commission had not cleared up this matter earlier and had continued to pay her benefits before deciding on the disqualification.
I have concluded that the decision of the Board should be set aside as I believe it committed an error of law in not applying the proper test of "just cause". The only rationale which the Board supplied for not finding "just cause" was that there was no evidence the claimant was conducting a job search. While that can be a relevant factor in determining the reasonability of a claimant leaving a job voluntarily, in that normally one is expected to look for other work before quitting a job in the absence of special circumstances, it is not determinative of whether just cause existed. The test of just cause essentially is that stated in subsection 28(4) of the Unemployment Insurance Act which says that just cause exist.
Where, having regard to all the circumstances ... the claimant had no reasonable alternative to leaving the employment...
I believe that if a Board of Referees, finding the facts as this Board did, addressed its attention to this test it would find in these circumstances that the claimant had just cause. No one has suggested a reasonable alternative which she had to quitting. She needed to use her car in her job and to do so she needed to get the starter repaired. She could not afford to do so, and this is not surprising considering she was being paid $5.25 an hour for fifteen hours of work a week, soon to be reduced to ten. I will make the decision the Board should have made.
The appeal is therefore allowed.
B.L. Strayer
UMPIRE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
September 7, 1993