IN THE MATTER of the Employment Insurance Act
- and -
IN THE MATTER of a claim for benefits by
ETHEL MANNS
- and -
IN THE MATTER of an appeal by the Commission to an Umpire from a decision
by the Board of Referees given at Kelowna, British Columbia,
on October 24, 2001.
Heard at Kelowna, British Columbia, on May 10th, 2002.
W.J. HADDAD, Q.C., UMPIRE:
The issue in this appeal, filed by the Employment Insurance Commission, is whether claimant voluntarily left her job with the RCMP on May 25, 2001, without just cause. The Commission's ground of appeal is that the Board of Referees erred in law.
Claimant was employed as a Clerk (Firearms Registry) with the RCMP Firearms Registry located in Ottawa. Her husband, employed in the Foreign Affairs Department, Ottawa, was due to retire on July 18, 2001 and he planned to return upon retirement to Kelowna, in his home province of British Columbia. In preparation for the relocation from Ottawa the claimant resigned her position effective May 25, 2001.
The claimant filed an application for unemployment benefits and an initial claim was established effective August 12, 2001. The Employment Insurance Commission denied claimant benefits ruling that she was disqualified for having voluntarily left her job without just cause because there was a reasonable alternative available to her. In its written representations to the Board of Referees the Commission outlined the reasons for its ruling as follows:
"Based upon the facts on file, the Commission determined that the claimant did not demonstrate just cause for voluntarily leaving her employment because there were reasonable alternatives available to her. It is the Commission's contention that after considering all of the evidence it would have been reasonable for the claimant to have remained employed until closer to her planned relocation. In addition, the claimant could have enquired further into the possibility of a transfer or leave of absence in order to protect her opportunities for further employment. While the claimant is aware that this is not correct and that leave and priority status is granted on a regular basis to a person who relocates to accompany his or her spouse. The Commission, therefore, imposed an indefinite disqualification pursuant to sections 29 and 30 of the Act, effective 12 August 2001 (Exhibit 7)."
In addition the Commission says that it contacted the claimant's former employer and the information it received is that claimant was given the opportunity of taking a leave of absence with priority status, a fact which claimant denied to the Board of Referees and her denial was accepted. Claimant gave oral testimony before the Board and the Board found her to be credible. Moreover, it is apparent from the evidence that priority status did not assure claimant of employment in Kelowna where the RCMP did not have a Firearms Registry - nor could she be assured of employment by the RCMP at all or by any other government agency.
The essential portion of the decision of the Board of Referees reads as follows:
"The Board has reviewed all the evidence and has determined the following:
1) The appellant did quit her job to follow her spouse and this issue is not disputed.2) The Board finds that the two month delay in moving to Kelowna is not unreasonable due to the house sale and the cross country move.
3) The appellant has directly contradicted the statement of the Human Resource Consultant.
4) Due to the house break-in the appellant admits to some confusion in regards to her conversation with the Insurance Commission on 4 October 2001. She feels she may have not been clear with the Commission.
The Board had the advantage of the appellant and her spouse's testimony to explain the circumstances.The issue of weight of evidence has to be weighed in favour of the appellant due to direct testimony that the Board has found credible.
The appellant was clear she was not told about "spousal relocation leave and or priority status".
The key fact remains the appellant left her job to follow her spouse, which given her long marital status was an obligation, which a reasonable person would do.
The Board concludes the appellant left her employment with just cause as defined by the Employment Insurance Act."
In principle I am in accord with the decision reached by the Board of Referees. As pointed out by the Board the claimant left her employment to follow her spouse to another residence and she did what any reasonable person would have done in the same circumstances. She had no reasonable alternative. I am also in full agreement with the Board of Referees that claimant's resignation short of two months before her husband's retirement is not unreasonable.
In my view the Board of Referees did not err in law.
The appeal is dismissed.
"W.J. Haddad"
W.J. Haddad, Q.C. - Umpire
Dated at Edmonton, Alberta,
June 17th, 2002.