IN THE MATTER of the Employment Insurance Act
- and -
IN THE MATTER of a claim for benefits by
DEBBIE PRUE
- and -
IN THE MATTER of an appeal by the Claimant to an Umpire from a decision by the
Board of Referees given at Oshawa, Ontario, on August 2, 2001.
Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on June 5th, 2002.
W.J. HADDAD, Q.C., UMPIRE:
The Employment Insurance Commission determined that the claimant was disqualified from benefits having voluntarily left her employment with Squareroot Enterprises Ltd. on September 20, 2000 without just cause. The Board of Referees affirmed the Commission's ruling. This appeal was launched by the claimant from the Board's decision.
Following claimant's termination of her employment with Squareroot Enterprises she applied for unemployment benefits and an initial claim was established effective April 1, 2000. The applicable legislation, having regard to the matters raised by the claimant's written submission is the Employment Insurance Act, section 29(c)(vi),(ix),(x), (xi):
(c) just cause for voluntarily leaving an employment or taking leave from an employment exists if the claimant had no reasonable alternative to leaving or taking leave, having regard to all the circumstances, including any of the following:
(vi) reasonable assurance of another employment in the immediate future,(ix) significant changes in work duties,
(x) antagonism with a supervisor if the claimant is not primarily responsible for the antagonism,
(xi) practices of an employer that are contrary to law.
I will dispose of (xi) by merely saying that this issue was not before the Board of Referees, and, therefore, a decision was not rendered in respect thereof. Moreover, there is no evidence in the material with reference thereto. With respect to (ix) claimant said she was hired to work 20 hours a week but worked longer than part time shifts. There is no validity to that submission because the evidence shows that claimant requested additional hours to enhance her earnings. Moreover, if she was hired on a part time basis she should have insisted on limiting her hours accordingly.
The Board of Referees reviewed all the evidence provided by the claimant and the employer with respect to the issue of antagonism (x) and the conduct of both claimant and employer to determine whether claimant had no reasonable alternative to leaving her employment. It would serve no purpose for me to indulge in repetition by reviewing the evidence again. The role of the Board of Referees is to examine and evaluate the evidence it receives and to select the evidence it deems the most reliable - particularly where it receives evidence from opposite parties which may conflict. Moreover, it is the function of the Board based on the evidence it accepts to determine whether claimant had no reasonable alternative to leaving. The Board performed the role assigned to it and made a finding that the working relationship had not deteriorated to the point of hostility, harassment and verbal mistreatment. I cannot disturb that conclusion.
The claimant also contended before the Board of Referees that when she quit she had a reasonable assurance of another employment in the immediate future (vi). That justification for quitting was not unfortunately, disclosed to the Commission to give it an opportunity to investigate. The Board, however, dealt with that issue.
The evidence received by the Board of Referees with respect to the issue of another job is set out in its decision in some detail as follows:
"The claimant told the Board she harbors no hard feelings towards her employer, however, at the time she was working for them, she often went home upset. The night she quit, she was upset. The owner, Clem, had admonished her in front of customers, and she was disturbed by this. She went down the mall and into the bank, where she met someone from "Remember Cards and Things." She told this woman about how unhappy she was working for Squareroot Enterprises, and the woman told her that if she were looking for work, she would be interested in hiring her. They would go through the interview process, and likely she would be hired. Strengthened with this potential employment opportunity, the claimant returned to the store, and told the owner she was quitting. A couple of days afterwards she was interviewed by Remember Cards, and commenced working just over one week later. The claimant told the Board that she had two just causes for which to quit: a reasonable assurance of another employment in the immediate future, and also antagonism with a supervisor."
The Board decided that issue against the claimant using this reasoning:
"The Board carefully considered whether the just cause, Section 29(c)(vi): "reasonable assurance of another employment in the immediate future" applies to this situation. The claimant met up with a potential employer on the day she quit, and was bolstered by the fact that she quite likely would have a job shortly if she quit. However, the Board finds that the claimant told the Board that she would have quit her job anyway, as she was so unhappy, whether or not she had another job to go to. Further, the claimant had yet to go through the interview process, and so there was no offer made prior to the claimant's quitting. The Board finds therefore that this just cause does not apply to this situation."
The Board determined that claimant's prospect of another job did not justify a finding of just cause for leaving her employment because, firstly she would have quit her job in any event - and - secondly, she had to go through the interview process. Claimant's statement she would have quit her job anyway should not have been taken to mean she would have quit her job that day or that she would have quit without the reasonable assurance of a job at some future date. In any event, claimant's intention to quit is not relevant to the claimant's contention she was assured of another job.
With respect to the requirement of an interview according to the evidence recited by the Board although the claimant's prospective employer intended to conduct an interview the likelihood existed that claimant would be hired - and - indeed she was hired and commenced work on October 2, 2000. The interview process appears to have been a mere formality.
The evidence demonstrates that claimant had a reasonable assurance of another employment when she quit her job with Squareroot Enterprises. There was an objective basis upon which a reasonable assurance existed. The Board did not in a positive way consider the words "reasonable assurance" and it erred in law by failing to do so. If the Board intended to infer that the claimant's intention of quitting her job and the necessity of an interview meant that the assurance of another job was not reasonable it erred.
For the foregoing reasons I allow the appeal.
"W.J. Haddad"
W.J. Haddad, Q.C. - Umpire
Dated at Edmonton, Alberta,
June 26th, 2002.