IN THE MATTER OF THE EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
and
in the matter of a claim for benefit by
ROBYN BENMORE
and
IN THE MATTER of an appeal by the claimant, from a decision of a Board of Referees given at St. John's, NL, on the 11th day of March, 2003.
DECISION
Hon. David G. Riche
The issue in this case is whether or not the claimant left her employment without just cause pursuant to sections 29 and 30 of the EI Act.
The claimant had been employed from September 2002 to November 2002 at which time she quit to take on a temporary on-call position. She had been working 40 hours per week at Sears earning $8.48 per hour. When she took her job with the Newfoundland Liquor Corporation she was unsure as to how much work she would get. The pay was substantially higher. She worked nearly 200 hours from November 18 to December 12, and worked only 17 hours from January 4 to February 10, 2003. When the claimant appeared before the Board she pointed out that she did not feel her job was secure at Sears because she worked in Sears Travel and with the instability in the travel industry, she was unsure of what the future would bring. She had already been laid off from another travel agency.
With the Liquor Corporation she has to continue on a call-in basis so that she will obtain sufficient seniority to obtain a full time job.
The Board of Referees found that the claimant gave up a full time job to take a part-time one and while her future prospects may constitute good cause, it did not constitute just cause under s. 29(c)(vi). The Board felt she should have remained in the job until a more lucrative position was obtained.
I have considered the decision of the Board of Referees and have considered the appeal of the claimant. The evidence is clear that the claimant worked pretty well a full day from November 18 to December 4, a six week period. She is now working full time with the Liquor Corporation. I do not agree with the finding of the Board of Referees when they stated that the claimant had to wait around until she found a more lucrative job which was full time. In this particular case the claimant's new rate of pay was substantially more than the rate of pay where she was. Also the method of hiring in places such as the Liquor Corporation is often done by persons taking on part time which develops into full time as they prove themselves. It is easy to say that a person should wait around until a full time job comes along before having just cause for leaving a low paying job. In this particular case an opportunity came along which offered the claimant substantially more income for the first six weeks she worked there and developed soon into a full time employment. It is my view that what the claimant did in this case does constitute just cause as she increased her pay from $8.48 an hour to $13.02 per hour. She then worked pretty well full time for six weeks and within a few months she was working full time.
The Board of Referees however did not have this information available to them when they made their decision in March of 2003. At that time it was unknown to the Board whether or not the claimant would obtain full time work with the Liquor Corporation as she did. Had they known that she was going to obtain full time employment, their decision may very well have been different.
Based on the information that was presented to me which showed that her part time job became full time, I have the authority to consider this evidence under s. 120 of the Act. This new evidence, together with all the facts as found by the Board, satisfies me that she had just cause under s. 29(c)(vi). The claimant's appeal is allowed.
David G. Riche
Umpire
September 19, 2003
St. John's, NF