TRANSLATION
IN THE MATTER OF THE EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
- and -
IN THE MATTER of a claim for benefits by
RENO ROBERT
- and -
IN THE MATTER of an appeal by the Claimant to an Umpire
from a decision by the Board of Referees given on
April 28, 2000 at Bathurst, New Brunswick
DECISION
A. GOBEIL, UMPIRE
On December 20, 1999, the Commission informed the claimant of the following:
"As of September 2, 1999, we wish to inform you that we will no longer pay you any benefits.
You decided to take a training course on your own initiative. You are therefore not considered available for work."[TRANSLATION]
The claimant appealed this decision before a Board of Referees. The decision was allowed and is now being appealed.
After having heard both the claimant's attorney and the Commission's counsel and after having reviewed the evidence in this case, I have arrived, with all due respect, to the conclusion that the Board of Referees rendered its decision without considering all of the evidence brought before it, and this constitutes an error in law.
First, the evidence does not show that the claimant left his job to take a training course on his own initiative. It shows that he left his job because of a shortage of work. This is important in understanding the sequence of events.
According to the evidence, he registered for a course rather than remain idle.
Furthermore, the non-disputed evidence reveals that the claimant had continued to look for work, that he was prepared to move and that he would readily give up his studies to work. Moreover, in his letter to the Commission, dated December 29, 1999 (exhibits 7.1 and 7.2), the claimant stated that he had worked part time as a janitor since December 13, 1999. He stated, as he did in his original testimony, that he worked more hours to prove, on the one hand, that he wanted to work and, on the other hand, that he was actively looking for work and that he was studying simply to occupy the rest of his time, an occupation which he was willing to give up since studying was not his main priority.
In my opinion, the decision by the members of the Board of Referees, to the effect that the claimant had not proven his availability to work while studying, cannot be upheld.
CONSEQUENTLY, the appeal is allowed.
ALBERT GOBEIL
UMPIRE
MONTREAL, Quebec
August 31, 2001