Heard at Toronto, Ontario on January 18, 2002.
IN THE MATTER of the Employment Insurance Act
- and -
IN THE MATTER of a claim for benefits by
MARK MILLER
- and -
IN THE MATTER of an appeal by the claimant to the Umpire from the decision of a
Board of Referees rendered at Mississauga, Ontario on April 17, 2001.
D E C I S I O N
W.J. GRANT, UMPIRE:
This is an appeal by the claimant from the unanimous decision of a Board of Referees given at Mississauga, Ontario on April 17, 2001 dismissing the claimant's appeal from the decision of the Insurance Officer that he left his employment without just cause.
This appeal by the claimant is under Section 115.2(c) of the Employment Insurance Act.
The Board, in its decision, did not specifically refer to the facts it found. However, in Exhibit 10-2 the Board found that the claimant had a verbal offer of a job in British Columbia.
The Board did not consider Section 29(c)(vi) of the Act, which relates to a reasonable assurance of another employment in the immediate future.
The situation which the Board found was that it was not a reasonable assurance of another employment, but in fact it was an offer of a job. This, in my opinion, is much stronger than any reasonable assurance of another employment. Furthermore, the job was offered and accepted by the claimant before he left the employment. Therefore, the Board found that he had an offer of a job and the evidence was that he had accepted it. This, in my opinion, is much stronger than a reasonable assurance of employment in the immediate future. He had the job now. In addition the claimant said that he was a member of the union in British Columbia and that in order to get the employment in British Columbia this was a requirement. He, therefore, not only had the job, but he had the capacity to work at the job as a member of the union.
At no place in its decision did the Board even mention that sub-section of Section 29 of the Act. I would ordinarily have returned it to a new Board to deal with the issue of the sub-section of Section 29 of the Act.
There was considerable discussion about the relocation of the claimant's employer in the greater Toronto area. This was one of the reasons that the claimant left to take the employment in British Columbia.
I, therefore, grant the relief, which the Board should have granted under these circumstances based on the facts found by the Board, and find that the claimant did have just cause for leaving his employment.
I allow the appeal.
"W.J. Grant"
W.J. Grant
Umpire
PRESENT:
The claimant appeared on his own behalf
For the Commission:
Sharon McGovern
Dated at Halifax, Nova Scotia
January 31, 2002