CUB 44281
Archived Content
Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, please contact us to request an alternate format.
IN THE MATTER of the EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
- and -
IN THE MATTER of a claim by.
WILLIAM HILLIER
- and -
IN THE MATTER of an appeal to an Umpire by the claimant from a decision by the Board of Referees given at Gander, Newfoundland, on March 12, 1998
D E C I S I O N
CULLEN, J.:
The appellant was not present, so I have made the decision on the record.
This is an appeal by the claimant from a decision of the Board of Referees which held that he voluntarily left his employment without just cause.
Mr. Hillier filed an application for benefits on January 15, 1998, indicating that he had left his employment with Lakeside Packers in Alberta because of family problems back in Newfoundland. The claimant stated that when he went to Alberta his daughter and spouse had remained in Newfoundland. His daughter missed him during his absence and felt that he did not lover her. While he was in Alberta, the claimant and his spouse separated but upon his return to Newfoundland they reconciled. Mr. Hillier indicated that he "quit on the spur of the moment" and did not make any efforts to look for other work prior to leaving his job.
Based on this information, the Commission determined that the claimant had voluntarily left his employment without just cause and imposed an indefinite disqualification commencing January 11, 1998.
Mr. Hillier appealed to a Board of Referees which dismissed his appeal stating its reasons as follows:
The claimant did not attend the hearing. The Board relied on the content of the docket. The claimant stated that he left his job because of family problems, The Board understands the concerns the Claimant felt for his family but notes that the Claimant had not acquired another position before leaving and since leaving ones job to attend to family problems does not constitute just cause pursuant to Subsection 2.9(C) [sic] of the Act the Board concurs with the decision of the Commission.
The claimant now appeals to an Umpire on the grounds that the Board failed to observe a principle of natural justice. In his letter of appeal he states that he does not feel the Board gave him a fair hearing because he knows many people who have come back home for no reason and who qualified for benefits.
COMMENTS
The Board did not apply the correct legal test here, which is whether in all of the circumstances of the case, the claimant had no reasonable alternative but to leave his employment. The claimant's letter of appeal to the Board of Referees (exhibits 5-1 to 5-2) is the best explanation of why he left his job in Alberta:
I quit because of family problems. I was living up there an my family (my wife & daughter) lived in Fortune. My family didn't move up with me as we couldn't afford to move up there. I stayed in the trailers on work site. May rate of pay was $9.20 per hour when I left & $8.00 per hour when I started. My 6 yr old daughter was getting upset because I was away & she felt I didn't love her and her school work was dropping... I felt I had no other choice but to quit as I couldn't get a leave of absence as I couldn't tell them how long I would need. I am capable & available for work in this area with no restrictions. Also it was virtually impossible to get an apartment at a decent rate up there. An apartment 2 bedroom ranged around $900 per month. My spouse & daughter were on Social Assistance while I was up there as we were separated but have since reconciled.
The Commission's position is that the claimant should have looked for higher paying work in Alberta before quitting and returning to Newfoundland where the unemployment rate is more than three times higher. In that way, it submits, he could have afforded to have his wife and daughter come and live with him. This is an unreasonable position and ignores the social policy considerations with respect to maintaining and accommodating the family unit. Under all of the circumstances of the case, especially the claimant's reconciliation with his wife and the problems encountered by his young daughter as a result of his absence, what reasonable alternative did this claimant have other than leaving his employment in Alberta and returning home to his family in Newfoundland?
Accordingly the appeal is allowed.
B. Cullen
UMPIRE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
February 2, 1999.