CUB 26046

«TRANSLATION»

ISSUE: Voluntary leaving - Left employment two weeks before the end of her contract to spend two weeks with her family in Nova-Scotia.

Section 28(4) (n) Act

APPELLANT: Claimant

DECISION: Allowed

CLAIMANT: MONA MELANSON

*DECISION

ROULEAU, UMPIRE:

The claimant is appealing the unanimous decision of the Board of Referees, which upheld the decision of the Commission's officer that by the terms of sections 28 and 30 of the Act, the claimant voluntarily left her employment without just cause.

Ms. Melanson filed a renewal benefit claim on August 14, 1992, giving lack of work as a reason. The Record of Employment issued by Revenue Canada shows that the claimant left her employment. The claimant explained that she left her employment two weeks before the end of her contract in order to spend two weeks with her family in Nova Scotia. The Commission notified Ms. Melanson that she had voluntarily left her employment with Revenue Canada without just cause. She was disqualified from receiving benefits for a period of eight weeks commencing on August 9, 1992, and her benefit rate was reduced from 60% to 50%. The claimant appealed this decision, stating that she had asked for two weeks of unpaid leave in order to accompany her husband and daughter on vacation. She stated that she should be entitled to benefits as of September 14, or two weeks after the end of her contract, and that her benefit rate should not be reduced.

The claimant did not appear before the Board of Referees on December 8, 1992. The members of the Board took into consideration the fact that the claimant's contract was supposed to end on August 28, 1992, and found that the minimum disqualification of seven weeks should apply. They did, however, confirm the Commission's decision.

Section 28(4) of the Act sets out the circumstances in which a claimant has just cause in voluntarily leaving his or her employment. The question at issue is thus: May one apply section 28(4) of the Act in the case at bar?

At the hearing, the claimant explained that she had consulted the Commission before taking her vacation, and that she had been told at the time that there was no problem and that she would be able to claim benefits.

The claimant also emphasized the existence of two different Records of Employment. The first, contained in Exhibit 4, gives voluntary separation as the reason for the termination of employment, while the second, in Exhibit 13.4, rather gives lack of work as the reason.

Moreover, taking vacation pay into account, the date of the end of the claimant's last pay period is August 26, 1992, only two days before the end of her contract.

In the present case, I am of the opinion that paragraph 28(4)(n) of the Act applies and that the Board of Referees therefore erred in law.

For these reasons, the appeal is allowed.

UMPIRE