IN THE MATTER OF THE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
- and -
in the matter of a claim for benefit by
ALLEN 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.
In this case the claimant, who was employed with Pacific Coast Cedar Products, was a shareholder but not a director. In 1993 and 1996 the company directors decided to lay off the directors and shareholders from their employment in the business in order to save money. These directors and shareholders then went on unemployment insurance benefits. The Commission determined that these people including the claimant were involved in a business as set forth in s. 43(1) of the Regulations and therefore not entitled to benefits. The Commission also established that they were not entitled to benefits because they were not available as required under s. 14 of the Act.
The Board found that the claimant attended the mill where he had been working while he was on UI and did so each day. He told the Board that he joined other laid off shareholders at the office of Pacific Coast Cedar Products and participated in what were described by the president, George Klassen, as strategy meetings. Mr. Hampton also agreed with the questionnaire completed by the president George Klassen.
With respect to availability he could not recall prospective employers but he said he did drop off resumes. He did not keep any record of where and with whom he inquired about employment for the periods he was on layoff.
The majority of the Board found as a fact that the claimant was not caught by s. 43 of the Regulations as the Commission had not proven that the claimant was a shareholder at material times. In that respect the Board was in error. The Commission, however, did not cross-appeal on this finding and the Board's decision to allow his appeal on that issue must stand.
With respect to availability, however, the Board was not satisfied that he had shown proof that he was capable, available and seeking work at the time that he was on claim. His failure to show a search record and the oral evidence offered before the Board was not sufficient to satisfy the Board that he was in fact seeking employment.
The Board found as was stated by the claimant that he participated in the sessions held by the President of the company on a daily basis and this was further evidence that he was not available for work during the days that he was on claim.
For these reasons I am satisfied that the evidence presented to the Board of Referees is in conformity with their findings.
The claimant's appeal is therefore dismissed.
David G. Riche
Umpire
December 4, 2002
St. John's, NF