CUB 61362

R. C. STEVENSON, UMPIRE:

The Commission appeals from the decision of a Board of Referees allowing Mr. Fraser's appeal from its ruling that it could not pay him unemployment benefits because he had voluntarily left an employment without just cause.

Mr. Fraser was employed at minimum wage as a detailer at an automobile dealership. In 2002 he had applied to take the two-year carpentry course offered by the Nova Scotia Community College. The evidence in the record indicates that he had been approved by HRDC for financial assistance to take the course. Unfortunately the course was cancelled for that year. In September 2003 the College called Mr. Fraser and offered to enrol him. He promptly quit his job and enrolled. He assumed he would be eligible for HRDC assistance but it was denied.

Mr. Fraser had had some difficulties with his employer about the quality of his work.

Subsection 114(3) of the Employment Insurance Act requires that a decision of a Board of Referees include the Board's findings of fact on questions material to the decision. The Board failed to comply with that requirement and thereby erred in law and effectively refused to exercise its jurisdiction. Mr. Fraser and counsel for the Commission agree that I should not refer the matter back for re-hearing but should give the decision the Board should have given.

The Board of Referees did say that Mr. Fraser "should be considered under section 29(c)(x)" of the Act. Section 29 provides that just cause to voluntarily leave an employment exists if a claimant had no reasonable alternative to leaving, having regard to all the circumstances, including several specific circumstances one of which is "(x) antagonism with a supervisor if the claimant is not primarily responsible for the antagonism."

The evidence of Mr. Fraser's difficulties about the quality of his work does not support a finding of fact that there was antagonism between Mr. Fraser and his supervisor.

The most relevant circumstance is that Mr. Fraser, relying on the fact he had been approved for assistance in 2002, assumed he would be eligible for that assistance in 2003 when the course was offered. While he obviously did not understand the bureaucratic intricacies of obtaining assistance he acted in good faith. In those circumstances continuing to work for minimum wage was not a reasonable alternative. I therefore find that, having regard to all the circumstances, he had just cause to leave his employment.

I doubt that HRDC can backdate assistance to Mr. Fraser for the 2003-2004 year but I recommend that he be considered for assistance in the upcoming college year.

The Commission's appeal is dismissed.

Ronald C. Stevenson

Umpire

FREDERICTON, NEW BRUNSWICK
July 30, 2004