TRANSLATION
IN THE MATTER of the EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
- and -
IN THE MATTER of a claim for benefits by
KATHYE HUNEAULT
- and -
IN THE MATTER of an appeal to an Umpire by the Commission from the decision of a Board of Referees given on April 14, 2004 at Montreal, Quebec.
DECISION
A. Gobeil, Umpire
The Commission appeals from the Board of Referees' decision overturning the determination it had made in the claimant's case to the effect that it could not pay her regular benefits because she had left her employment with McMahon Dist. Pharm. Inc. on January 8, 2004 without just cause and when it had not been her only reasonable alternative.
In its decision, the Board of Referees stated the following:
"The claimant said that she had left her employment to take care of her child. She was chronically fatigued from working irregular hours (7:00 p.m. to 3:30 a.m.) and looking after her children.
After hearing the claimant's credible testimony and reviewing the information in the docket, the Board finds that the claimant had just cause for leaving her employment pursuant to section 29(c)(v) of the Employment Insurance Act."
On the one hand, the claimant's statement concerning the fact that she had to take care of her child and was chronically fatigued because of her work schedule must be considered in light of all the evidence. On the other hand, if the facts support this statement, she must still discharge the burden of proof on her to establish that she had no reasonable alternative to leaving.
The evidence indicates that, in the past, her employer had changed her work schedule. With respect to the situation in this case, the employer, realizing that the claimant had two children with speech difficulties, stated that the claimant could have worked fewer hours but had chosen not to, preferring to quit, since, according to the employer, she seemed fatigued. Therefore, attempts were made to accommodate the claimant's situation, but these did not work out given her state of fatigue.
In light of this, the Board of Referees' decision seems reasonable, and I do not believe that a claimant who is the mother of two children with particular difficulties is required to accept, in order to take care of them, schedule changes that would simply aggravate her current state of fatigue to the evident detriment of her first and foremost obligation as a parent to care for her children. To state otherwise would open the door to the worst kind of abuse. In the instant case, the claimant had no reasonable alternative to leaving her employment.
I have no reason to intervene, as the Board of Referees' reasonable decision does not contain errors of fact or of law.
CONSEQUENTLY, the Commission's appeal is dismissed.
Albert Gobeil
Umpire
Montreal, Quebec
November 23, 2004