IN THE MATTER OF THE EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
- and -
in the matter of a claim for benefit by
KIRSTON BARNES
- and -
IN THE MATTER of an appeal by the claimant from a decision of a Board of Referees
given at Corner Brook, NF on the 28th day of February, 2001.
Hon. David G. Riche
The claimant had been employed under a student work program for seven weeks. When she had completed six weeks of that period she left her job. The reason she left her job was because she had received a call from her friend assuring her that she would obtain employment in a plant in Brampton, Ontario. The claimant advised the Board that she felt that she had brought herself within the provisions of s. 29(c)(vi) because she had a reasonable assurance of other employment.
The Board relied on the decision in Landry A-1210-92 which stated that a claimant must show more than good cause but must show that they have no reasonable alternative but to leave their employment.
It is my view that this decision has no application to the issue before the Board.
The Board, however, also relied on the decision in CUB 48759, per Umpire Marin.
One cannot leave employment in order to relocate simply for reasons which are personal unless alternative arrangements have been made or, alternatively, that there was reasonable assurance of employment where the person is relocating. Word of mouth, promises, hopes do not qualify as reasonable assurance of employment. While he may have been laid off eventually, the fact is he was not laid off, he triggered his own unemployment.
In this particular case the claimant was advised by her friend that she would likely get employment at a plant in Brampton, Ontario. On the basis of that she went to Brampton and obtained employment within one week. It is my interpretation of the word "assurance" coupled with the word "reasonable" means that there is a good likelihood that the person would be employed. I do not believe that it means that a person has a job waiting for them. It does not mean in my view that a person has been hired elsewhere. Whether or not there was an assurance of employment is usually found after the fact when the person in fact does find employment as promised. To quote a well used phrase "the proof of the pudding is in the eating". A person could be advised that employment is available for them by an employer and when they arrive it may be determined that the employer has changed its mind and determined that they did not wish to hire that person.
It is my view a liberal interpretation of the legislation should be sufficient to allow for the claimant to rely on information that work was available and she could very likely get work there to be a reasonable assurance as required by the Act.
For these reasons I am satisfied that the evidence was such before the Board that applying the law it should have come to a different conclusion and allowed the claimant's appeal under 29(c)(b)(1).
For these reasons the appeal is allowed and the decision of the Board of Referees and the Commission set aside.
__________
Umpire
June 20, 2002
St. John's, NF