• Home >
  • Jurisprudence Library
  • CUB 47727

    IN THE MATTER of the Employment Insurance Act

    - and -

    IN THE MATTER of a claim for benefits by
    GERALDINE SCHEIDEMAN

    - and -

    IN THE MATTER of an appeal by the Claimant to an Umpire
    from a decision by the Board of Referees given at
    Edmonton, Alberta, on April 23, 1999.

    DECISION

    Heard at Edmonton, Alberta, on January 18th, 2000.

    W.J. HADDAD, Q.C., UMPIRE:

    The claimant launched this appeal. The issues are (1) whether claimant voluntarily quit her job on February 18, 1999 without just cause; and (2) whether claimant failed to prove she was available for work.

    The claimant commenced employment' with the Rehoboth Christian Association on March 28, 1987 and was granted maternity leave on August 24, 1998. Claimant applied for unemployment benefits and an initial claim for maternity and parental benefits was established and allowed effective September 6, 1998. It was the intention of the claimant at that time to resume her employment at the expiration of her parental benefits. Instead claimant, who gave birth to twins, left her employment voluntarily and filed for regular benefits on March 8, 1999.

    The applicable legislation is the Employment Insurance Act, subsection 29(c)(v) as follows:

    (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 claimant was already the mother of a infant child when her twins arrived. She quit her job because of the pay, the stress of the job and the responsibility of having to care for three children. In a written submission dated March 25, 1999, she expanded on her reasons for quitting, as follows:

    "Effective March 1, 1999, I was expected and planning on returning to my full time job from maternity leave. However, I had no other option but to resign from my position.
    Being a mother of a toddler and a new mother to twins, my life right now is more than a full time job. I cannot count the hours I put in seven days a week.
    The environmental stress of parenting multiplies May be less obvious than the physical drain. It, too, takes it's toll. And I would be returning to a demanding, stressful job only to earn wages that basically covers childcare. In addition, childcare for twins and toddler is hard to find.
    I would be continuing to seek employment as a second paycheque is an asset to surviving financially. It is finding a job with paying wages substantial enough to make it worth while.
    Right now, it is not feasible for myself to return to work."

    The Board of Referees held that claimant's reasons for leaving her employment did not constitute "just cause" - and - in doing so it erred in failing to consider whether claimant had no reasonable alternative to leaving. Its decision was based on the wrong test.

    The claimant contended that to return to work she would have to engage a child care service and not only would it be difficult to find a service for three children, including twins, she would be unable to earn enough money, if she returned to her employer, to cover the financial burden of a child care service and provide for all other necessities at the same time. She says that having twins created a change for her financially, physically, and mentally.

    I accept claimant's assertion that it was not feasible for her to return to work following the birth of the twins. She had an obligation to care for her three children. She clearly had no other choice.

    I conclude, therefore, that claimant had no reasonable alternative to leaving her employment. She has demonstrated "just cause".

    I allow the claimant's appeal on the first issue.

    With respect to the second issue, the rule is that an unemployed claimant must show a willingness to work as well as a reasonable effort to find work. Although claimant was willing her obligation to remain at home to care for her children simply means she is unable to prove her availability for work.

    Accordingly the appeal on the second issue is dismissed.

    W.J. Haddad, Q.C.

    Umpire

    Dated at Edmonton, Alberta,
    February 18th, 2000.

    2011-01-10