CUB 60222

Hon. David G. Riche

The issue was whether or not the claimant voluntarily left his employment without just cause pursuant to sections 29 and 30 of the EI Act, and secondly, whether or not he has proven his availability for work while attending a course of instruction pursuant to subsection 18(a) of the EI Act.

The Board of Referees found that the docket showed that the claimant did not demonstrate just cause for voluntarily leaving his employment because he had not shown a reasonable alternative to leaving his job when he did. The Commission contended that a reasonable alternative to leaving would have been for the claimant to continue working until such time as he actually began his Masters program.

The claimant had filed an application for benefits while employed with a school board from July 1, 2001 to June 30, 2003. At that time he voluntarily left his job to do a Masters program in January 2004. In the meantime he was going to do correspondence courses. He stated that he could not work and do the course at the same time.

The evidence at the hearing revealed that no new evidence was presented. The Board of Referees reviewed all the information and spoke with the claimant. They found that the claimant did not demonstrate just cause for voluntarily leaving his employment with the school board on June 30, 2003. He said he left his teaching position in Saskatchewan to return home to complete his Masters Degree. He was taking two correspondence courses prior to starting his classes in January of 2004. He also told the Board that he did not request the leave of absence from his job and was now looking for employment.

The Board commended the claimant for wanting to further his education but were of the view that he may have had a good cause for quitting his permanent teaching position but he did not prove just cause pursuant to sections 29 and 30 of the Employment Insurance legislation. They further found that while the claimant states he is now available for work while doing his courses, he did not demonstrate to the Board that he has made a considerable effort to secure other employment since leaving his teaching position. For these reasons the appeal was dismissed.

The claimant in his appeal to the Umpire states that he believes that he left his job with just cause. He states: "As previously stated, I maintain that I left my job for personal reasons because I was far away from my permanent home and family members. I therefore decided to apply to go back to University to make myself more employable on returning to Newfoundland. I applied to University and was asked to resign by members of the School Board by a certain date to make administrative matters easier for the School Board for which I was employed. This was before the hearing whether or not I was accepted into the program for which I applied. At the time I submitted my resignation I was not yet accepted into a program of training and had not received any word from the University. As of this date, I have still not received any word as to whether or not I am accepted into the program of training for which I applied."

He then goes on to state that he was advised by the Director of Education where he was employed that he should not look for a leave of absence but a letter of resignation would be the best option. In his second ground of appeal he states that "he is not enrolled in any program of training but was completing two correspondence courses which did not hinder my ability to work for those who know how correspondence courses are structured, they are set up in a way so that they may be completed at home to allow a person to work during the day." He then stresses that he is available for work and the appeal should be allowed on that basis. He also points out that he contacted several school districts about employment and applied for several positions but was unsuccessful. "I was and am still actively searching for full time work as a teacher."

The Commission in response to the claimant's letter of appeal states that the claimant in Exhibit 4 indicated that he was putting in 30 hours per week study time and could not remain working to complete those courses. His employer confirmed that he had resigned his employment to further his education and did not request a leave of absence - Exhibit 5. The Commission refers to Exhibit 2-7 in question three where it states that the claimant will not have his courses completed until the 31^st of December 2003. On the other hand at question 12, the claimant states that he is available for work Monday to Friday 9:00 to 5:00. Then at Exhibit 2-8 he then lists the various school boards where he has applied for work and they number five in total.

I have considered the evidence in this matter and there seems to be somewhat of a conflict in the claimant's position. He first states he resigned his employment in order to complete three pre-requisite correspondence courses in order to commence his Masters Degree in January 2004. He also did not take a leave of absence because of advice received from the employer. There is, however, nothing to suggest that he could not have continued working with the school board until he was ready to commence his course in January of 2004. If his correspondence courses could have been done without affecting his work, why did he need to quit his employment. It seems to me that it was a personal choice for him to quit his employment and to return home to Newfoundland and work on his correspondence courses here which are suggested to have consumed about 30 hours per week.

With respect to leaving his employment without just cause, I too agree with the decision of the Board of Referees that this was a personal choice by him although he may have been guided in his decision by his employers. It was, however, his decision to make. If they wanted him to be dismissed because he was intending to take his Masters Degree the next year, then he could have waited until that actually took place. It may not have taken place if he had given them notice that he was leaving in January of 2004. The six month period between June of 2003 and January 2004 was a period of time during which he could have remained employed and continued with his correspondence courses unless, of course, these courses were such that prohibited him from being able to attend to his duties with the school board. In either case it seems to me that he either was too occupied with the correspondence course to continue his employment during that six month period or that he could have stayed employed and completed his courses. In either case, it seems to me that it was a personal choice by the claimant to leave his employment and move back home to Newfoundland in order to enrol in a course of instruction. Although he has applied for work at other school boards in Newfoundland without success, this does not relieve him of the obligation to provide just cause for voluntarily leaving his employment. That he has not done. For these reasons, I am satisfied that the claimant's appeal should be dismissed both on the issue of voluntarily leaving his employment and on the issue of availability.

The appeal is dismissed.

David G. Riche

Umpire

March 12, 2004
St. John's, NF