IN THE MATTER OF THE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
- and -
in the matter of a claim for benefit by
GORDON HAMPTON
- and -
IN THE MATTER of an appeal by the claimant
from a decision of a Board of Referees given at
Burnaby, B.C., on the 11th day of April, 2001.
DECISION
Hon. David G. Riche
The issue in this case is whether or not the claimant was unemployed under s. 8, 10 and Regulation 43 of the Unemployment Insurance Act and not available for work under s. 14 and 40 of the Unemployment Insurance Act.
The claimant was a director and shareholder of Pacific Coast Cedar Products Limited. He was a forklift operator and a supervisor. He and other shareholders and directors of the company determined that in 1993 and 1996 they would lay themselves off in order to benefit the company financially. These directors, including the claimant, went on UI benefits. The issue is whether or not he was still carrying on business during the time of his layoff and receiving benefits, and further whether he was available for work and seeking other employment.
The evidence before the Board was such that the claimants, after laying themselves off, would meet daily at the company's premises for what was described by the president, George Klassen, as strategy sessions. These sessions lasted some four to eight hours a day, five days per week.
The Board of Referees determined that the claimant was a shareholder in H.T.H. Holdings which held shares in Pacific Coast Cedar Products. He testified before the Board of Referees that he attended the offices at the mill while on UI and did so from time to time but couldn't remember if it was daily. He met other shareholders and employees informally and said he discussed hockey and sports in general. He said he would find out what the other shareholders and employees were doing. He told the Board that he did not actually work during any of the time he was laid off and said he didn't keep record of where he was looking for work because he didn't know he was supposed to. From memory he identified three places where he made inquiries but offered no substantiation. The claimant also agreed with the statement given by the president of the company that they met daily for strategy sessions.
The majority of the Board found that the claimant was engaged in the operation of a business on his own account, in partnership or co-adventure with others by virtue of his ownership and employment relationship with his employer, Pacific Coast Cedar Products Limited. During his time of layoff he was still going to the business daily, Monday to Friday. There was no evidence from Mr. Hampton that he was seeking work during this period. The Board found that Mr. Hampton had a significant investment in that business, that he spent part of every day there during his period of layoff and on benefits, he was a director along with being a shareholder and it was his principle means of livelihood.
I agree with the findings of the Board that this claimant was involved in a business more than a minor extent during the period he was on benefit. Further, he has failed to establish that he was available and seeking work each and every day that he was on benefits. In fact, the contrary has been shown as he admits to visiting his place of employment where he was a shareholder and director during a period of time when one would expect an unemployed person to be seeking employment.
In these circumstances I am satisfied that the majority decision of the Board of Referees is sound.
The appeal of the claimant, Gordon Hampton, is therefore dismissed.
David G. Riche
Umpire
December 4, 2002
St. John's, NF