IN THE MATTER of the EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
- and -
IN THE MATTER of a claim by
Cory GOREHAM
- and -
IN THE MATTER of an appeal to an Umpire by the claimant
from a decision by the Board of Referees given
on April 4, 2002, at Yarmouth, N.S.
JEAN A. FORGET, Umpire
The claimant appeals the majority decision of the Board of Referees who determined that he did not have just cause for leaving his employment.
Mr. Goreham filed a claim for benefits which was established effective February 3, 2002. In support of his claim he had filed a Record of Employment from Harbour Light Fisheries 1993 Ltd. indicating layoff as well as a Record of Employment from B. Reynolds Trucking Ltd. indicating a voluntary separation. The claimant explained that he was unhappy with that employer and had found employment elsewhere. He also stated that he expected work would be steady with Harbour Light Fisheries 1993 Ltd. This employer confirmed that full-time employment would resume shortly.
The Commission was satisfied that the claimant had demonstrated just cause for leaving his job with B. Reynolds Trucking Ltd. and allowed benefits to be paid. The employer disagreed and appealed this decision to a Board of Referees. The employer did not appear at the hearing before me but his letter of June 17, 2002, filed, was taken into consideration.
Before the Board of Referees Mr. Reynolds indicated his concern that former employees of his were accepting employment from a competitor, expecting to be laid off shortly thereafter and applying for E.I. benefits. He indicated that there was no slow-down at his company and Mr. Goreham would have continued to be employed full-time.
The majority of the Board found as follows:
"The Board feels that these abuses exist in the trucking industry but that the law regarding this issue are such that the abuse can occur. There is no evidence that Mr. Goreham actively participated in any abuse of the system.
Mr. Goreham found other work before quitting and the Commission determined that this was "just cause" as defined in the Act.
The Board determined that Mr. Goreham knew that there would be a slowdown at Harbour Light Fisheries (Exhibit 6) and that he would be laid off for part of the winter. A reasonable alternative would have been to stay with B. Reynolds Trucking until the downtime was over.
The Board finds that for this reason Mr. Goreham did not demonstrate "just cause" for leaving B. Reynolds Trucking."
The dissenting member was of the view that the Commission properly considered that there was just cause and correctly approved Mr. Goreham's claim.
The claimant now appeals the Board's majority decision to the Umpire. He submits that the Board erred in allowing his former employer's retaliation against him to succeed. He states that the working conditions at B. Reynolds Trucking were unfit because of the verbal abuse and mind games of the employer.
In its observations to the Board of Referees the Commission clearly states that the claimant acted reasonably and had just cause for leaving his employment with B. Reynolds Trucking. He secured another position prior to leaving. The Commission did consider the fact that there would be brief downtime and the new employer confirmed that this would be of short duration.
In this case the claimant was unhappy with his employer and took the steps a reasonable person would be expected to take prior to quitting, he secured alternate employment.
In my view the Board erred in deciding as it did. The Board's decision is not reasonable, nor is it founded on the facts of this case. It seems the Board's majority is attempting to penalize the claimant for the abuse of the system, even though it clearly states there is no evidence this particular claimant participated in any abuse of the system. This claimant found work prior to leaving employment he did not enjoy. The legislation requires nothing more of claimants. The fact that he was subsequently laid off for a brief period of time does not take away that he did what was required of him.
At the hearing, the claimant submitted that he complied with the requirements of the legislation. Counsel for the Commission submitted that the original decision of the Commission to allow the claim was correct.
The decision of the Board of Referees cannot be supported by the evidence before them and accordingly their majority decision was made without regard for the material before them.
Under the above circumstances, the claimant's appeal must be allowed, the majority decision of the Board of Referees is set aside and the original decision of the Commission is restored.
J.A. FORGET
UMPIRE
OTTAWA, Ontario
September 27, 2002