IN THE MATTER of the EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
and
In the matter of a claim for benefits by
Rhiannon GALLANT
and
IN THE MATTER of an appeal by the Commission from the decision of a Board of Referees given on April 6, 2005 at Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island
DECISION
GUY GOULARD, Umpire
The claimant worked for Southport Home Centre Ltd. from October 23, 2004 until January 25, 2005. On February 7, 2005, she applied for sickness benefits and a claim was established effective January 30, 2005. The Commission was later informed that the claimant had worked for the National Bank of Canada from May 31, 2004 to September 3, 2004. The Commission determined that the claimant had voluntarily quit that employment without just cause and imposed an indefinite disqualification effective January 30, 2005.
The claimant appealed the Commission's decision to the Board of Referees which allowed the appeal. The Commission appealed the Board's decision. This appeal was heard in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island on November 25, 2005. The claimant did not attend but was represented by her mother, Ms. Sandra Gallant.
The evidence in this case established that the claimant had been attending university for several years while working at one or more jobs during her studies. In the spring of 2004 she accepted a summer job with the National Bank of Canada and indicated she would be returning to university in the fall. When she left her employment with the National Bank of Canada, she resumed her employment with one of her other employers, Southport Home Center Ltd. She later had to leave this employment due to health reasons. The bank had indicated they would have kept her had they been able to offer working hours that could accommodate the claimant's university schedule. The claimant was nearing the end of her university program with only a few credits to complete. This limited the choices in courses she could take. She knew she would be returning to one of her jobs after her sick leave. It turned out, as was stated before me, that the claimant was unemployed for only one week and it is her eligibility for this week that is in issue.
The claimant appeared before the Board and reviewed the evidence. She explained she had not left her employment with the National Bank of Canada to return to school but had accepted that employment as a summer job and, as planned, was returning to school with the knowledge she would be working again as she had done in her previous years at university. The bank had told her they would like to keep her in its employ but this was not possible.
The Board allowed the claimant's appeal for the following reasons:
"The Board finds that the claimant has had a very good history of part-time work and attending classes. Although she has been denied benefits, she also continues to seek part-time work as well as a career oriented job nation-wide. The Board, therefore, disagrees with the Commission and cites CUB 53009. The Umpire in this case, agrees with his decision that the claimant (O'Connell) did not quit his job to become unemployed, but to return to school to complete his training. Such is the case with Ms. Gallant and she should not be penalized for bettering her chances at full-time meaningful and productive employment."
On appeal, the Commission submitted that the Board erred in finding that the claimant had shown just cause for leaving her employment with the National Bank of Canada as the reason she left that employment was to return to school.
The claimant's representative submitted that the Board had taken all the claimant's circumstances into consideration in arriving at its decision that the claimant had shown just cause for leaving her employment with the bank. She pointed out that the claimant had held two or even three employments throughout her university year and that she had returned to one of these jobs when she left the bank to resume her school year. She reiterated that the claimant had accepted a summer job with the bank and her agreement with the bank had terminated although the bank would have been happy to keep her. She argued that the claimant had not left the bank to become unemployed and that she was not unemployed at any time except for one week at the end of her sick leave period. She submitted that the Board recognized all these circumstances in allowing the claimant's appeal. She commented it was a sad statement when the Commission stated that a reasonable alternative would have been for the claimant to stay employed at the bank rather than leave this employment to finish her university degree.
The determination of whether a claimant has been able to show just cause for leaving his employment, and that there was no reasonable alternative to doing so, entails basically a review and determination of facts. It is well established in the jurisprudence that Boards of Referees are responsible for the determination of facts.
In Guay (A-1036-96), Mr. Justice Marceau wrote:
"In any event, it is the Board of Referees "the pivot of the entire system put in place by the Act for the purpose of verifying and interpreting the facts" that must make this assessment.
...
The umpire, in our opinion, could not dismiss this finding by the Board solely on the basis of reasoning that, when all is said and done, simply gives unfettered priority to the views of the employer."
And, in Le Centre de valorisation des produits marins de Tourelle Inc. (A-547-01) Justice Létourneau stated that the role of an Umpire is limited to deciding if the Board of Referees' appreciation of facts is reasonably compatible with the evidence before the Board.
In the present case, the Board's decision is entirely compatible with the evidence before the Board. Although it is well established that leaving an employment to attend an educational program does not constitute just cause for doing so, the Board recognized, in this case, that it was not merely a situation of a claimant leaving employment to go to school but that the claimant left a job she had only accepted for the summer to return to her well established pattern of working at one or more employments while pursuing her studies. She started working almost immediately and was forced to temporarily leave her employment for health reasons. She had been unemployed for only one week before being able to resume her pattern of work and studies. The Board's decision was well supported by the evidence. The claimant had established just cause for leaving her employment with the bank.
An Umpire's jurisdiction is limited by subsection 115(2) of the Employment Insurance Act. Unless the Board of Referees failed to observe a principle of natural justice, erred in law or based its decision on an erroneous finding of fact made in a perverse manner or without regard for the material before the Board, an Umpire is required to dismiss an appeal.
The Commission has not shown that the Board of Referees so erred. To the contrary, the Board's decision is well founded on the evidence before the Board.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Guy Goulard
UMPIRE
OTTAWA, Ontario
December 9, 2005