CUB 45378

McKEOWN J.

The essential facts are set out in the Statement of Facts of the Board of Referees decision dated February 3, 1999.

[ .. ] The Commission disqualified the claimant from benefits on the basis of voluntarily leaving employment without just cause from his previous employer, IPS Packaging Supplies.

The claimant stated that he left in order to better his life; he was 22 years old and making $7.00 per hour, and the employment was not stable - he was often laid off. He had saved enough money to live for a month and look for another job.

The employer stated that there was no problem with his job performance and were surprised that he quit,

The Board found that, although the claimant may have had "good cause" for leaving his employment, he did not have "just cause" under the Act, and dismissed the claim.

The appellant appeals the indefinite disqualification imposed pursuant to ss. 29 and 30 of the Employment Insurance Act for voluntarily leaving his job with IPS Packaging Supplies without just cause and for not accumulating the required number of hours of insurable employment, since leaving that employment, to be able to establish a new claim.

The appellant alleges that the employer was engaged in illegal labour practices and that the work was very strenuous and stressful. The Board of Referees heard the evidence of the appellant and the employer, and determined that the appellant may have had "good cause" but not "just cause". Furthermore, as the Commission suggested, the appellant could have contacted the Department of Labour to conduct an investigation, prior to leaving. However, although the appellant found employment within two weeks of leaving, the jurisprudence is that for "just cause" to be present, the appellant must have secured other employment prior to his leaving his current employment.

On the second ground, the appellant submits that the Commission should use the required hours from his employment at IPS Packaging Supplies to establish his claim for benefits, since he is only short by 208 hours and he had over 1700 hours of paid premiums from this employment. However, s. 30(5)(a) of the Act precludes this solution. Section 30(5) reads as follows:

30(5) If a claimant who has lost or left an employment as described in subsection (1) makes an initial claim for benefits, the following hours may not be used to qualify under section 7 or 7.1 to receive benefits:

(a) Hours of insurable employment from that or any other employment before the employment was lost or left; and

(b) hours of insurable employment in any employment that the claimant subsequently loses or leaves, as described in subsection (1).

In CUB 40935, Murdoch J. states:

The Commission having determined that the claimant quit his job without "just cause", the number of weeks of employment at Kelly's are not counted. The claimant, not being a new entrant or re-entrant, requires 16 weeks of insurable employment to be entitled to benefits. As the weeks at Kelly's are not applicable, the claimant has accumulated only six weeks of insurable employment. He has failed to meet the minimum requirement..

The same principle applies in the case before me. The appellant has only earned 388 hours since he voluntarily left his employment and required 595 hours to establish a claim for benefits.

In view of the foregoing, I find that the Board's findings were reasonable and were not made in a perverse or capricious manner. The appeal is dismissed.

William P. McKeown

UMPIRE

Ottawa, Ontario
July 27, 1999.