CUB 24913

This is an appeal by the claimant from a decision of the Board of Referees which affirmed the Commission which in Exhibit 1 stated that the claimant refused to accept the position without good cause and, therefore, under all the circumstances she was disqualified from receiving benefits for eight weeks. The disqualification began on July the 17th, 1992.

Furthermore, because of this disqualification, her benefits were reduced from 60 to 50 percent pursuant to section 30(6) of the Act.

Exhibit 2-1 shows that the claimant last worked on April the 30th, 1992 when she was laid off from her job with an engineering company as a senior expeditor.

It is important to look at section 27 of the Unemployment Insurance Act regarding this matter, and the relevant sections read as follows:

"Section 27(l): A claimant is disqualified from receiving benefits under this Part if without good cause since the interruption of earnings giving rise to his claim

(a) he refused or has failed to apply for a situation in suitable employment that is vacant after becoming aware that situation is vacant or becoming vacant, or has failed to accept that situation after it has been offered to him;

(b) he has neglected to avail himself of an opportunity for suitable employment."

In Lupaschuk, CUB 18413, Cullen J., sitting as an Umpire, set out criteria which are to be considered by the Board when the issue of refusal to accept suitable employment arises. The four factors outlined are: 1) Was there a refusal? 2) Was the employment offered suitable? 3) Was there good cause for the refusal? 4) What disqualification period is suitable?"

First, was there a refusal? The evidence would seem to indicate that the claimant was in touch with a potential employer who was about to offer a short-term position. She was not interested as the position was that of a purchasing agent, in which she had little experience having been employed as an expeditor for the last twenty years with various companies.

It was her evidence that there was a great deal of difference between being an expeditor and a purchasing agent and she felt she did not have the experience to handle same. Accordingly, she did not pursue the matter further.

Was there a refusal? I find that there was a refusal by her in that she was not interested in considering the position. She said at one point in the evidence that it was because it would interfere with her Unemployment Insurance benefits if she had to apply, but indicated in her testimony before me that the real reason that she turned down the job or not inquiring further about it or not making herself available for it was because of the fact that she did not feel that she could handle the job properly. I find, therefore, there was a refusal.

Second, was the employment offered suitable? Being an expeditor means to get rid of things. Being a purchasing agent means to receive things. It is that simple. There is a great deal of difference between an expeditor and a purchasing agent. After careful consideration of this matter, I find that the employment offered was not suitable.

Third, was there good cause for the refusal? In evidence before me this morning the claimant indicated that the day she filled out the application she had received telephone calls about two positions in the expediting line.

Before I make a determination on this point, I should point out that the onus on the claimant is much less stringent than is a matter of voluntarily leaving a job "without just cause" under section 28 of the Act. All the claimant must prove is that in a balance of probabilities she had "good cause" to refuse the position.

The jurisprudence shows that "good cause" means, when given all the circumstances, the claimant acts in a manner in which a reasonable person would normally be expected to act in the circumstances (CUBs 18749 and 18504).

The Commission gives great credence to the fact that in her application the claimant indicated that she would take a position as an expeditor or "buyer", see Exhibit 2-3. When questioned by me on this point, she simply said that she had been unemployed two or three times in 20 years and had found that when she widened the scope of her request for a job, chances of her finding a job were considerably enhanced. This is why she added the word "buyer", but indicated that she had only had one year of experience as a buyer, and in a limited way, in the past 20 years. I find, therefore, that she had "good cause" to refuse the position. In view of the conclusion I have reached, I need not consider factor 4.

I concede that this is a borderline case. I ,think in a matter like this, the benefit should be given to the claimant who impressed me as an honest, conscientious person who felt that her refusal was justified, that the position was not suitable for her and that there was good cause for the refusal in that a possibility was opening that she might be able to receive a job in the near future as a senior expeditor again. Unfortunately, she did not work for five months but then became a senior expeditor once again.

Therefore, the decision of the Board of Referees is in error under section 80(b) of the Act and the appeal is allowed. She had reasonable cause to refuse the unsuitable position offered.