IN THE MATTER OF THE EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
and
in the matter of a claim for benefit by
NAVANEETHAN SRIKANDARAJAH
and
IN THE MATTER of an appeal by the employer, Crown Electric Limited from a decision of a Board of Referees given at North York, ON, dated the 28th day of October, 2003.
DECISION
Hon. David G. Riche
The issue in this case was whether or not the claimant voluntarily left his employment without just cause according to sections 29 and 30 of the EI Act.
The Board of Referees confirmed the decision of the Commission and dismissed the employer's appeal.
The evidence before the Board was that the claimant had worked for Crown Electric from November 2002 to January 2003. There was a note on the R.O.E. that the claimant was away from work from January 27, 2003 to February 7, 2003 and gave notice of leaving on February 7, 2003. The claimant's position stated on his E.I. application was that he worked with another company from March 2003 to July 30, 2003 and another employer from July 2003 to August 8, 2003. He said he left due to lack of work. There were no R.O.E.'s from these employers. He left for Sri-Lanka for two months because his father was ill. The employer, Crown Electric, said they could not hold his job for so long. He stated that while he was on his two week vacation he was advised the week of February 3, 2003 that his father was ill. He requested a twelve week leave of absence and the company refused saying he could not be laid off more than two weeks. He was also advised that he could call on his return if there was any work and they would take him back.
The employer did not allow his request because they were busy and he did not call on his return. They further stated that they would take him back. The employer also stated that they had offered him work on several occasions but he had declined.
The Board found that while the employer suggests that the claimant left because of his father's illness, there was not sufficient evidence of it. The Board, however, gave the benefit of the doubt to the claimant that he quit because he was not given a leave of absence to attend his father during his illness. The Board of Referees then found that the claimant did show just cause within the definition of the Act for voluntarily leaving.
The employer then in its appeal to the Umpire states: "We discovered, having had discussions with Mannie's Electrical Limited, that Mr. Srikandarajah had also worked at Mannie's Electrical Limited and left for similar dramatic reasons. He worked with them at a later date and left them for the same reason. He told them that his father was killed in Sri-Lanka and that he needed to go to Sri-Lanka. This occurred just months after he had to see his sick grandfather when he was employed at Crown Electric. He had an entirely different story for the Board of Referees. Mannie's Electrical did give the claimant an R.O.E. He did not present this. This shows that he has not behaved with the utmost honesty in this situation. He also seems to have suspiciously repetitive high drama situations requiring his departure from the country which need to be investigated."
The Commission in its argument referred to s. 49 of the EI Act which states: "The Commission shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant on the issue of whether any circumstance or conditions exist that have the effect of disqualifying the claimant under s. 30 or disentitling the claimant under s. 31, 32 or 33, if the evidence on each side of the issue is equally balanced."
The Commission's position was that both parties were given a full opportunity to present their cases at the hearing for the Board of Referees and the Board made no reviewable error in principle, law or fact when they concluded as they did.
I have considered the evidence before the Board of Referees and the appeal of the employer. Although I agree with the employer that it is rather unusual that the claimant would have his grandfather ill and then his father killed within the times suggested in the appellant's letter of 15.2, it should however be remembered that even though the illness of his grandfather and the death of his father within the same year, although in our society would seem surprising although not impossible in a war torn country such as Sri-Lanka, it is certainly more believable.
Having considered the evidence before the Board of Referees, I am satisfied that there is nothing in the appeal of the employer that would warrant me altering their decision. The evidence supports the decision they made and that it was in accordance with the legislation under s. 29 of the EI Act.
For these reasons the appeal of the employer is dismissed.
David G. Riche
Umpire
March 12, 2004
St. John's, NF