In the Matter of the Employment Insurance Act,
S.C. 1996, c. 23
- and -
In the Matter of a claim for unemployment benefits by
Bernice Osmond
- and -
In the Matter of an Appeal by the Commission
from the decision of a Board of Referees given
at Edmundston, New Brunswick on February 10, 2000
Appeal heard at Sydney, Nova Scotia on October 5, 2000
DECISION
R. C. STEVENSON, UMPIRE:
The Commission appeals from the decision of a Board of Referees allowing Mrs. Osmond's appeal from (1) a Commission ruling that she was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because she had voluntarily left her employment without just cause and (2) that she was not entitled to benefits because she had not proved that she was available for work.
Mrs. Osmond was employed as a sales manager at the Cambridge Suites Hotel in Sydney. She left her job at the end of August 1999 to attend a teaching certification course at the University of Maine at Fort Kent, Maine. She lived at Saint-François-de-Madawaska, New Brunswick while taking the course.
The Board of Referees allowed her appeal on the availability issue based on her past record of working while studying. On that issue I cannot find that the Board of Referees erred in law or in principle or that it based its decision on any erroneous finding of fact.
On the issue of just cause the Board said "she left her employment because of hours of work outside her 9-5 due to her managing jobs that cause stress on her children (family)."
At the present hearing Mrs. Osmond made a written submission detailing the stress her job had placed on her, her husband and her two children. Being in a management position her hours were not "9 to 5". She frequently had to stay at the hotel after 5.00 pm. She had to attend a managers' reception for guests each Wednesday evening. She was required to work out of town at least one week each month. She had to be on duty as manager throughout every fifth weekend.
The case is similar to that in CUB21401 where Justice Strayer allowed an appeal by a claimant who was employed as a municipal swimming pool manager. The job involved irregular and long hours and response to emergencies at odd hours. The umpire held that the circumstances of "obligation to care for a child" applied and that the claimant had just cause to leave her job.
The test of just cause is whether one had no reasonable alternative having regard to all the circumstances.
I am not convinced that the Board of Referees erred in law or in principle or that it based its decision on any erroneous finding of fact.
The Commission's appeal is dismissed.
RONALD C. STEVENSON
Umpire
FREDERICTON, NEW BRUNSWICK
November 1, 2000