IN THE MATTER of the EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
- and -
IN THE MATTER of a claim by
CATHERINE MISENER
- and -
IN THE MATTER of an appeal to an Umpire by the claimant
from a decision by the Board of Referees given on
December 20, 2000, at Hamilton, Ontario
DECISION
GUY GOULARD, Umpire
The claimant appeals the unanimous decision of the Board of Referees who upheld the Insurance Officer's determination that she was not entitled to employment insurance benefits because she had voluntarily left her employment without just cause and that this was not the only reasonable alternative in her case.
Ms. Misener filed a claim for benefits on September 19, 2000 indicating she had been unable to find a babysitter for her daughter. She indicated having discussed her problem with her employer who offered her another shift but it was not convenient since her husband also works shifts. The employer stated the claimant had never discussed coming in late or taking time off or even changing shifts. He said she called in and left the message that she quit. It was not until he called her back that she told him why she was quitting. The employer said she could have requested the first week of school as a vacation week but she did not request time off. The Commission imposed an indefinite disentitlement, having determined the claimant voluntarily left her employment without just cause without having exhausted all other alternatives.
The claimant appealed this decision to a Board of Referees. She stated she spoke to the warehouse supervisor the day she quit. She explained she had been looking for someone responsible to take her daughter to school in the morning during the weeks her husband worked the day shift. She was hoping to find a suitable sitter through the principal's office at the school. She indicated having asked the supervisor to come in late by 45 minutes every third week when her husband worked days. The employer said that when the claimant asked for time off he believed she wanted the half day off and he already had 3 other employees off for the same reason. He denied that the claimant asked to come in late by 45 minutes every third week.
The Board found the claimant credible but felt the issue could have been resolved with full and proper communication about her requirements for a sitter for her daughter. It concluded the claimant left her employment without just cause as she failed to exhaust all reasonable alternatives before quitting.
The claimant now appeals the Board's decision to the Umpire stating that the employer had given false statements at the hearing which she felt had turned into a defamation of character hearing.
In a letter dated February 26, 2001, the employer reiterates that the claimant had not formally asked for a leave of absence or time off and had not discussed her babysitting problems prior to quitting.
There seems to be contradiction on this issue on the part of the employer since at the hearing of the Board the employer representative indicated that he believed she wanted the whole morning off and he already had 3 other staff off for the same reason. Also, in its letter of February 26, 2001, the employer points out that the claimant "had demonstrated a willingness to take leaves of absence of her own accord" and refers to letters of reprimand concerning her lack of attendance.
In her oral evidence before me the claimant indicated that she was actively looking for a solution to her child care problem which basically was to find someone who could accompany her six years old daughter to school one week out of three. She stated that it took only one day to find a solution to her problem and that, if the employer had cooperated for the extent of one day, she would have been able to keep her employment. She felt that, given her obligation to care for her child, she had no choice but to leave her employment when the employer left her with no alternative.
As stated above, the Board failed to take some important elements of evidence in consideration in arriving at their decision. The employer's own statements put their credibility in doubt as to the claimant's efforts to arrange something with them.
I therefore find that the Board's decision was made without regard for the material before it.
Accordingly, the Board's decision is replaced by my own which is that the claimant's appeal from the Commission's decision is allowed.
GUY GOULARD
UMPIRE
OTTAWA, Ontario
December 11, 2001