IN THE MATTER of the Employment Insurance Act
- and -
IN THE MATTER of a claim for benefits by
DEMELASH GARZA
- and -
IN THE MATTER of an appeal by the Claimant to an Umpire from a decision by the Board of Referees given at Kelowna, British Columbia, on January 7th, 1999.
Heard at Kelowna, British Columbia, on October 28th, 1999.
THE HONOURABLE W.J. HADDAD, Q.C., UMPIRE:
This appeal was filed by the claimant. The issue is whether he voluntarily left his employment with Bluestar Battery Systems of Surrey, B.C. on May 15, 1998, without just cause.
Claimant at the time he left his job was residing in Vancouver.
The claimant, the father of a four month old baby girl, filed an application for parental benefits and an initial claim for benefits was established May 24, 1998, and upon the expiration of those benefits he requested regular benefits.
The claimant, at the material time, had lived in Canada for thirteen years and it was apparent during his oral presentation that he had problems with language and communication. That observation was also made by an insurance officer of the Commission following a conversation with the claimant on November 23, 1998.
The claimant quit his job because his wife left him and he was left alone to care for his child. The Board, however, based its decision on the ground claimant had alternatives. It concluded as follows:
"The Board is sympathetic to the appellant. However, he did voluntarily leave his employment without a leave of absence. He was on ten weeks of parental benefits during which time he failed to make any arrangements for the care of his child or find employment. We do appreciate the appellant's personal problem(s) but he did have alternatives and opportunities available to him which he failed to pursue."
It is convenient at this point to examine the applicable provisions of the Employment Insurance Act, section 29, ss. (c), (v) provides:
(c) just cause for voluntarily leaving an employment or taking leave from an employment exists if the claimant had no reasonable alternative to leaving or taking leave, having regard to all the circumstances, including any of the following:
(v) obligation to care for a child or a member of the immediate family,
The Board failed to consider some material factors leading to the claimant's decision to leave his job. Claimant's wife left him when he was residing in Vancouver. He was unable to make arrangements for anyone to care for his child as he had no friends or family to assist him and he could not afford to hire a babysitter on the money he was earning. According to the evidence he earned $595.00 every two weeks and his monthly rent was $550.00. It becomes immediately apparent that his financial position was not healthy. He said he never thought of asking his employer for a leave of absence and I think it fair to speculate that idea did not occur to him because a leave of absence was not a form of assistance granted to employees in his country of origin. In any event, faced with his communication problem and his personal problem the claimant ought not to be faulted for not having thought of a leave of absence and, it seems, the employer did not make it known to him that that kind of relief was available. The situation in which claimant was left was beyond his control because of his obligation to care for his child. He was in no position to seek new employment. Those factors should have been considered by the Board in making a determination as to available alternatives, if any.
Eventually the claimant left Vancouver to reside in Kelowna to accept an offer from a friend to live with him, rent free, and they would try and look after his baby. The date of that move is not indicated by the file. In any event, the child's mother took custody of the child in Kelowna on October 1st, 1998 and at that point claimant was in a position to seek new employment.
Having regard to the factors which I have alluded - and - which were not considered by the Board of Referees - the Board in giving its decision erred in making its decision without regard for all the material before it. It did not take all of the circumstances into account.
In consideration of the foregoing circumstances I conclude that claimant had no reasonable alternative open to him but to remain home to look after his child. That was an obligation which gave him just cause for leaving his employment. He was not free to seek other employment until he took up residence with friends in Kelowna. He was therefore, qualified for regular benefits at least up to that point in time.
For the reasons I have expressed I allow the appeal.
W.J. Haddad, Q.C.
Umpire
Dated at Edmonton, Alberta,
December 16th, 1999.