IN THE MATTER of the Employment Insurance Act
- and -
IN THE MATTER of a claim for benefit by
ROSALIND DAVIS
- and -
IN THE MATTER of an appeal to the Umpire by the claimant from a decision of the Board of Referees, given at Corner Brook, Newfoundland, on June 25, 1998
DECISION
WALSH, J.
Appellant appeared before the Board of Referees by telephone. She agrees, however, to have her appeal decided on the record.
The issue was a disqualification from benefits from February 15, 1998 for quitting her job with Chudleigh's Apple 'N Cider Shoppe Ltd. on February 10, 1998 without just cause. She had been working there in Milton, Ontario for 5 months and stated that she took leave of absence to get her daughter in school and returned to Newfoundland because her daughter refused to attend school in Ontario.
She had relocated with her husband in May 1997 as a result of employment he had secured, but her daughter stayed in Newfoundland to complete her grade 10 studies, joining the family in Ontario. She refused to attend school there and joined the workforce, but in February indicated that she wanted to return to Newfoundland to return to school. This is understandable since it must be very difficult for a girl of that age to be separated from all her former friends and obliged to go to a totally different environment. The principal agreed to accept her and she could graduate with her class. Two days after this, claimant's husband received a lay-off notice. Claimant then took leave of absence, and returned to Newfoundland, claiming UI benefits there. Claimant had had an earlier leave of absence in December to visit her father who was sick at the time and returned to work. She hoped to return to her work in Ontario after settling her daughter back in school in Newfoundlarid and, and did not tell her employer of the husband's lay-off as she wished to return to her job again if he was called back. In her view, she never quit it.
While this is a very sympathetic case, her reasons for leaving her work in Ontario, while very valid personal reasons, do not lead to the application of section 29 of the Act, as an obligation to accompany a spouse or dependent child to another residence. Her husband was under no obligation to return to Newfoundland when laid off in Ontario, and the daughter was not obliged to return to school in Newfoundland, although as already stated one can understand her strong desire to do so, and the desirability of this. Naturally, claimant did not want her to return there alone. Certainly completing her education was of primary importance to claimant, a concerned and sincere mother and to her husband.
Claimant had no guarantee of being re-hired by her former employer even if she returned to Ontario and there is no proof that she was given a second leave of absence on this occasion.
The Board, in a thoughtful decision, clearly makes the well-known distinction between "good reason" for leaving employment and "just cause", pointing out that it was not established that claimant had no reasonable alternative to leaving her employment.
Unfortunately for claimant and others with similar problems, the Employment Insurance Act is not designed to pay benefits to claimants who leave employment which could have continued, however strong their personal reasons may be for doing so.
Since there appears to be no error in the decision of the Board of Referees justifying a reversal by an Umpire purusant to paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) of section 115 of the Act, the appeal must be dismissed.
A.M. Walsh
Umpire
OTTAWA, Ontario
January 20, 1999