CUB 65005

R. C. STEVENSON, UMPIRE:

Ms. Koletsas appeals from the decision of a Board of Referees dismissing her appeal from a ruling of the Commission that her claim for unemployment benefits could not start earlier than June 12, 2005 because she had not completed her reports on time and had not shown good cause for being late.

No oral hearing having been requested the appeal is to be decided on the basis of the documents filed.

Ms. Koletsas lost her employment on April 12, 2005. On May 3 she made an on-line application for benefits. She received vacation and severance pay totalling $2046. On May 25 the Commission informed her of the allocation of that amount to the weeks between April 11 and May 7.

The Commission sent Ms. Koletsas an access code and instructions for making her bi-weekly reports electronically by either the Internet or telephone (Teledec). Ms. Koletsas admitted she did not fully read those instructions and she said she did not realize she could make her reports electronically. She did not attempt to make an electronic report until June 24. The system "screened out" her attempt because more than three weeks had elapsed from the weeks for which she was attempting to report, i.e. the weeks of April 17 and 24. The same day, June 24, she contacted the Commission and requested to have her claim antedated "to APR 17/04/05 to 30-04/05." She said:

I did not know when I got the statement that I had to call in and file the report.

On July 11 the Commission denied her request and wrote to Ms. Koletsas saying:

We are writing to inform you that your renewal claim for employment insurance benefits cannot start earlier than June 12, 2005.

You did not complete your report(s) on time, and did not show good cause for being late.

Ms. Koletsas appealed to the Board of Referees.

The combined effect of subsection 50(4) of the Employment Insurance Act and subsection 26(1) of the Employment Insurance Regulations is that a claimant is required to make a claim for benefits for a week of unemployment within three weeks after that week.

50(4) A claim for benefits for a week of unemployment in a benefit period shall be made within the prescribed time.

26(1) Subject to subsection (2), a claim for benefits for a week of unemployment in a benefit period shall be made by a claimant within three weeks after the week for which benefits are claimed.

The antedating of weekly or bi-weekly "continuing" claims is provided for by subsection 10(5) of the Act.

(5) A claim for benefits, other than an initial claim for benefits, made after the time prescribed for making the claim shall be regarded as having been made on an earlier day if the claimant shows that there was good cause for the delay throughout the period beginning on the earlier day and ending on the day when the claim was made.

In dismissing the appeal the Board of Referees said:

EVIDENCE AT THE HEARING

The Claimant attended the hearing.

She stated that she had received the benefit statement with the access code but she did not understand what is written on this. She did not go to the local HRSDC to find out what she had to do. She waited for her report cards.

FINDINGS OF FACT, APPLICATION OF LAW

The Board based on the information from the DOCKET and the hearing found that:

1. Claimant did receive the Benefit statement with the personal access code, which gives directions to the claimant when and how to file her report. (Exhibits 9-1, 9-2)

2. She did not try to understand the instructions, and she did not do what a reasonable person should do (i.e. to contact the local HRSDC and find out what she had to do).

3. Claimant did not have a good cause pursuant to Section 10(5).

With respect to the Board's finding that Ms. Koletsas did not have "good cause" for delay, I cannot find that the Board of Referees erred in law or in principle or that it based its decision on any erroneous finding of fact.

The Commission did not err in denying the requested antedate with respect to the weeks of April 17 and 24. It did, however, err in ruling that Ms. Koletsas' benefits could not start earlier than June 12, 2005. She attempted an electronic report on June 24. When it failed she immediately contacted the Commission. It was clearly her intention at that time to apply for any benefits to which she was entitled. The record does not show if she did in fact complete reports, either electronically or using the standard report cards, for the three weeks preceding June 24. Certainly the Commission should have assisted her to do so. She did not intend to further delay her claims. Claims made on June 24 for the weeks of May 28 - June 4 and June 5 - 11 would have been made within the three weeks prescribed by subsection 26(1) of the Regulations.

The appeal is allowed in part and the matter is remitted to the Commission to determine Ms. Koletsas's eligibility for benefits for the weeks of May 28 and June 5.

Ronald C. Stevenson

Umpire

FREDERICTON, NEW BRUNSWICK
December 16, 2005