CUB 59861

KRINDLE, Hon.

The commission appeals from a decision of the board of referees which determined that the claimant had not voluntarily quit his job with Ambassador Furniture on April 10, 2002 without just cause.

The claimant had worked at Ambassador Furniture for only five months when his mother-in-law, who provided child care services for the children of him and his wife, was suddenly hospitalized. The nature of her illness was such that it was not reasonably forseeable that she would soon return to her previous child-care duties and, in fact, at least four months after her hospitalization, she remained unable to return to the claimant's home or care for the children.

The commission took the position that reasonable alternatives existed to the claimant's quitting his job to care for his children. The commission stated that the children could have been placed in a before and after-school program at the daughter's school or that the claimant could have tried to arrange a leave of absence from his employer.

As to the suggestion that a claimant must, in all circumstances, try first to arrange a leave of absence from his employer, I note the decision of Umpire R.E. Salhany in Burt CUB 48123, dated April 3, 2000.

There is no obligation upon a claimant who has an obligation to care for a family member to first seek a leave of absence from an employer.

Given the short duration of the claimant's employment and the nature of his employment, the imposition of such an obligation in this case would not be reasonable.

As to the suggestion that the children should have been sent to a before and after-school day care program, the board considered those factors. There was evidence before the board that the claimant's daughter was unwilling to attend the day-care at the school. There was also evidence before the board, evidence which was fully accepted by the board, that the suggestion of day-care was inappropriate for the claimant as a result of his culture. In his culture, children are cared for by family members, not by strangers.

The question whether reasonable alternatives existed to the claimant's terminating his employment to care for his children cannot be determined without regard to the claimant's cultural realities. Not only did the board not err in taking his cultural imperatives into account, I believe it would have erred if it had disregarded those cultural imperatives.

I see no error of fact or law in the reasons of the board. The appeal of the commission is dismissed.

Ruth Krindle

UMPIRE

OTTAWA, Ontario
December 23, 2003