IN THE MATTER OF THE EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
- and -
in the matter of a claim for benefit by
LORI SAUNDERS
- and -
IN THE MATTER of an appeal by the Commission
from a decision of a Board of Referees given at
St. John's, NF on the 18th day of October, 2000.
DECISION
Hon. David G. Riche
The Board found that the claimant had a record of employment from Dynamite Stores in Montreal. She stated that she left her employment to go back to school as she could no longer pay child care and living costs on 27 hours per week. She then enrolled in a three year nursing program at Memorial University at a cost of $4654. She attends classes Monday to Friday. She spends 12 hours a week in class plus three hours in labs on Fridays and three hours per day at study. She had no recent pattern of working full time while attending classes. Her employer stated that the claimant left her job to return to school (Exhibits 12 and 13).
The Board found that when she accepted her position she was promised 40 hours per week. This was reduced to 27 and then changed to 33. She further stated that she worked at Suzy Shier full time and pursued full time studies at the Newfoundland Career Academy during 1989 -1990. She also advised the Board that she was in regular contact with a number of companies with whom she has applied for jobs. Consequently with respect to the issue of just cause, the Board found that the claimant qualifies under s. 29(c)(vii): "significant modification of terms and conditions respecting wages or salary".
Concerning her availability, the Board found for the claimant as she has a history of working full time while attending school and is conducting an active job search. For these reasons the Board allowed her claim on both issues.
I have considered the docket and I find that the Board's decision is not in conformity with the evidence before it. In Exhibit 14 it shows that the claimant worked 66.82 hours in a two week period and for the last 18 pay periods she averaged 64.72 hours. This was increased during the Christmas season from 72 to 77 hours biweekly. It seems to me that the evidence does not support the position of the claimant that her hours had been changed substantially. In fact, Exhibit 14 shows that her pay period was very much the same from October 1, 1999 up to the time that she quit. I therefore find that on this point the Board of Referees made an erroneous finding of fact.
I also find that the only reasonable conclusion the Board could have come to with respect to her reasons for quitting her job was to return to school. That, of course, is a good reason but not just cause for quitting her employment.
With respect to the second issue, I find that there was evidence that this claimant had worked full time while attending school some ten years before, in 1989 1990. This, however, was a long period prior to her enrolling in this course. I note, however, that the Board found that the claimant was carrying out an extensive job search. That being so, I can see how they came to the conclusion that a person with the claimant's experience would have a good chance to obtain employment.
I am therefore not prepared to disturb the finding of the Board of Referees with respect to availability. Her experience in the retail trade with fluctuating hours should permit her to continue employment while completing her course.
For these reasons the appeal of the Commission is allowed in respect to issue one that she left her employment without just cause. I confirm the decision of the Board with respect to their decision that found the claimant to satisfy the provisions of the Act with respect to her availability for work while attending a course of instruction.
D.G. Riche
Umpire
July 27, 2001
St. John's, NF