CUB 76089

L.-P. LANDRY, Umpire

The Commission appeals from a decision of the Board of Referees allowing the claimant’s appeal from the Commission’s decision to deny benefits to the claimant for voluntarily leaving her employment without just cause.

The claimant worked for a Remax agency from May 1, 2008 to February 28, 2009 and from March 1 to July 31, 2009 when she was laid-off. During the same period the claimant worked part time for A&B Liquor between October 25, 2008 and August 5, 2009.

Since the claimant had lost her full time employment, she stated that she could not continue to live in Alberta only with her part time job. She tried unsuccessfully to increase her working hours at A&B Liquor. She left that part time employment in order to seek a full time job on Vancouver Island.

The Board found that, in the circumstances the claimant did not have another reasonable alternative to quitting her employment at A&B Liquor. The Board noted the following facts:

"Both the claimant and her employer at A&B state that there was no extra work available. She left this position to seek a full time job in a larger urban area. She was also laid-off from her main job because of the economic downturn in the area. The Board of Referees finds that the claimant left her part time job as she could not subsist on her now reduced earnings , The claimant had no opportunities for other hours of work in that area....

The Board finds as fact that the claimant was living in a small town and that she had exhausted the opportunities for work in that area. The claimant then began to look for employment in another area where there would be more opportunities for full time work. The Board of Referees finds that the loss of the claimant’s main employment was tantamount to a reduction of her hours and that she was left with no option but to seek full time work elsewhere."

Counsel for the Commission relied on the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal in Mac c. Attorney General of Canada (A-344-07) in support of the Commission’s position. In that case the claimant had voluntarily left his part time job after being laid-off from his main employment with a second employer. The Court noted that in that case the Board found that the claimant did not show that he had no alternatives to leaving his job. More particularly the Court noted that the claimant did not ask his part time employer for additional hours of work The claimant further declined an offer from that employer to assist him in obtaining employment with the same employer in Vancouver.

In the present case, as noted above, the Board concluded that the claimant made every effort to obtain additional hours of work from her part time employer. Further the Board was satisfied that the claimant had exhausted the opportunities for work in her area at a time where there was "an economic downturn".

The conclusion of the Board is based on the evidence. The Commission has failed to show that this conclusion is unreasonable. No error of fact or of law has been shown which would warrant the intervention of the Umpire.

For those reasons the appeal is dismissed.

L.P. Landry

UMPIRE

Gatineau, Quebec
December 2, 2010