CUB 60830

Hon. Carl Zalev, Umpire

[1] Mr. Robert Van Cleef represented the appellant. Mr. Derek Edwards appeared for the Commission. The issue decided by the Board is whether or not benefits can be denied to a person who did not complete his report cards. The appellant appeals from a decision of the Board holding that the appellant had not shown good cause for the delay in reporting his cards and dismissed the appeal.

[2] The appellant established his claim effective November 24, 2002. On December 10, 2002 the appellant received written instructions for reporting for two weeks starting November 24 to December 27, 2002 by the Teledec system. He failed to do so. His first explanation for failing to report was in writing. He wrote:

"My wife had a baby on November 26/02. Unfortunately other important responsibilities took my attention away from keeping track with my unemployment benefits. I did not realize the weekly recording had changed it to telephone procedure for reporting as I had never dealt with this new procedure before. Sorry for the inconvenience."

[3] The Commission concluded that the reason for late reporting did not constitute good cause and denied benefits from November 25, 2002 to January 24, 2003. In his notice of appeal to the Board the appellant added additional information. He pointed out that his wife had been rushed to hospital for an emergency c-section. In those circumstances he was not aware of the change to Teledec reporting. He was waiting for cards which was his previous experience with reporting on a number of previous claims. The appellant did not call in his Teledec. He received Teledec written instructions on December 10, 2002. He did not call in his Teledec report until January 29, 2003 which was rejected because it was too late. He was required to report the two week period from November 4, 2002 to December 7, 2002.

[4] The Board, although sympathetic toward the appellant, held that he had not shown good cause and dismissed the appeal.

[5] In the appeal before me Mr. Van Cleef said that at the start of the lay-off C.A.W. representatives attended the Ford plant and told the workers, including the appellant, to bring in their cards for union assistance in completing them. The appellant relying on this information was waiting for a card to arrive, which was the procedure on all previous occasions. Because of the C.A.W. instructions he failed to read or misunderstood the Teledec instructions. He thought that Teledec was an alternative to paper cards. It was only on returning to work that he learned for the first time from co-workers that Teledec was mandatory.

[6] In my view, the Board of Referees acted without regard to this most important evidence before it namely the C.A.W. instructions which he reasonably relied on. The appeal is allowed and the request for an antedate is granted. See: CUB 11100 and CUB 10996.

"Carl Zalev"

Carl Zalev, Umpire

April 21, 2004
Windsor, Ontario