IN THE MATTER OF THE EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
- and -
in the matter of a claim for benefit by
CARL W. BURNS
- and -
IN THE MATTER of an appeal by the claimant from a decision of a Board of
Referees given at New Glasgow, NS, on the 24th day of January, 2001.
Hon. David G. Riche
This claimant was considered by the Commission to have left his employment without just cause under sections 29 and 30 of the El Act. To paraphrase the evidence, it is clear that the claimant did seek work with J. and D. Roofing Company. He discussed the wages he would receive with the employer's wife, suggesting that he expected to make $14.00 per hour. Later, after he went to work, he was told that he would be paid $10.00 per hour. The claimant said it was $10.00 to $12.00 an hour. All this took place within a period of two days. The claimant then told the employer that this was not in agreement with him because he needed more money to sustain himself. He was willing to work for $12.00 an hour but was only paid $8.00.
It seems to me that in the short time that he was working over that two day period there was no agreement as to what his employment would be because there was no agreement on what his pay would be. There was, in my view, no consensus between the employer and the employee. Further, the evidence is clear that the employer was abusive to the claimant. In these circumstances I am satisfied that not only was there some question as to whether or not this claimant was employed at all but the issue also looms as to whether or not he was dismissed without just cause because of the harassment.
It appears to me in both cases that the appeal should be allowed because the claimant has shown that he had just cause for quitting, even if he was employed, and it is my opinion that a contract of employment was never concluded.
I find that the appeal should be allowed.
__________
Umpire
July 2, 2002
St. John's, NF