IN THE MATTER OF THE EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
- and -
in the matter of a claim for benefit by
SEAN PARSONS
- and -
IN THE MATTER of an appeal by the claimant
from a decision of a Board of Referees given at
Corner Brook, NF on the 24th day of January, 2001.
DECISION
Hon. David G. Riche
The issue is whether or not the claimant voluntarily quit his job without just cause pursuant to sections 29 and 30 of the Act.
The claimant had been working in Ontario from March 1995 to December 2000. The claimant left his employment to return to Newfoundland to care for his 17 year old daughter. The daughter had moved to live in Ontario with her mother where she attended high school. This was in August 1999. The daughter found it difficult to adapt to life there and wanted to return to Corner Brook to finish her last year of school. Her grandparents agreed to have her come live with them until December 2000. However, looking after their granddaughter proved to be more than the grandparents could handle. Her mother could not move back to Newfoundland, therefore the claimant decided it was his responsibility to do so to care for his daughter. The claimant stated before the Board that through his father's employment he was given reasonable assurance of a job in April or May of 2001. But due to the age of his parents he could not wait until that time.
The claimant's position was that he did have just cause for voluntarily leaving his job because he needed to move with a spouse or dependent child and had reasonable assurance of a job in the near future.
The Commission contends that there was a distinction between wanting to care for someone and the situation where circumstances dictate leaving to care for someone.
The Board dismissed the appeal. The Board relied on a similar case of a daughter of a claimant wanting to return to Newfoundland to attend school. The claimant in that case left her job and returned to Newfoundland with her daughter. The Board upheld the Commission's decision that the claimant had not shown just cause for leaving her employment. The claimant appealed the decision of the Board to an Umpire. In CUB 43551 the Umpire stated:
While this is a very sympathetic case, her reasons for leaving her work in Ontario, while very valid personal reasons, do not lead to the application of Section 29 of the Act, as an obligation to accompany a spouse or dependent child to another residence .. The daughter was not obliged to return to school in Newfoundland, although as already stated, one can understand her strong desire to do so, and the desirability of this.
At the hearing before me, Mr. Parsons explained basically what had been explained to the Board of Referees. Every case must be considered on its own merits. Although the Board of Referees were persuaded to adopt the decision in CUB 43551, I find that there are differences in this case which cause me to find that the appeal should be allowed.
In this particular case the claimant before me advised that he was concerned that his daughter would not return to Ontario at his request and that she was planning on living with friends, etc. He was concerned about the welfare of his daughter. His statement that he had a good chance of employment has proved correct as he did acquire a job here on May 26. This is in accordance with the statement made before the Board that he had reasonable assurance of a job in Newfoundland.
Although it was argued by counsel for the Commission that this evidence was not before the Board, the facts show that his reliance on the assurance proved to be correct.
Based on the facts before the Board, I am satisfied that the claimant did have a reasonable assurance of other employment. The fact that subsection (v)(1) of s. 29 states: "reasonable assurance of another employment in the immediate future" does not necessarily mean the next day. The immediate future could mean within a month or two. Further, the situation with his daughter, being 17 years of age at the time and being in a position where she could refuse to return to Ontario, was certainly a cause for concern that satisfies me the claimant was exercising his obligation to care for his daughter under s. 29(b).
For these reasons, although the claimant did not obtain employment for some five months after his return to Newfoundland, I am satisfied on the facts that his statement that he had a reasonable assurance of employment and the situation with respect to his daughter were sufficient to permit him to quit his job with just cause in accordance with s. 29 of the Act. For these reasons, the appeal is allowed and the decision of the Board of Referees and the Commission is set aside.
David G. Riche
Umpire
July 15, 2001
St. John's, NF