CUB 76147

L.-P. LANDRY, Umpire

The claimant appeals from a decision of the Board of Referees confirming the Commission's decision to disentitle the claimant from benefits for his failure to return his reports within the prescribed period.

The claimant established an initial claim effective January 4, 2009 and he made his reports until March 22. However when the claimant attempted, on April 11, to file his report for the two week period March 22 to April 4, his attempt failed and he was requested to call the Telephone Reporting Service for assistance. The claimant failed to reply to that request. He returned to work on April 6.

There was no further contact by the claimant until June 18, 2009 where he submitted an application for benefits. He requested that his claim be antedated to March 29. The claimant would have been eligible to supplementary unemployment payments (SUB) during the period. The Commission decided that this second claim would be effective as of June 7 and denied the request for an antedate.

The Board determined that the claimant had experience with the system. The Board notes that the claimant "readily admitted that he forgot to submit his report" and that "no extenuating circumstances were provided to the Board to explain why the claimant failed to contact the Commission as requested".

The Board concluded that the claimant has not shown good cause for the delay in filing his reports.

At the hearing before the Umpire, the claimant submitted that contrary to what was submitted to the Board, he in fact made the required report for the two week period March 22, to April 4, 2009. Exhibit 5-1 to 5-7 show that on April 11, 2009 the claimant did in fact make his report by internet. For a reason that is unexplained the internet system at the end required the claimant to call the Telephone Reporting System. The claimant did not make that call.

His request for an antedate was made because the Commission declined to receive his claim as a continuance of the March claim for the reason that he failed to make the required report for the period March 22 to April 4, 2009. However as indicated above the report was made on time. The claimant failed however to make the required telephone call. The record does not indicate the reason for the requirement of this call.

In the circumstances the claimant could reasonably conclude that he had made the required report in due course. He did not report until June since he was working in the meantime.

Considering the above I find that the Board made an error of fact and of law in concluding that the requested antedate should not be granted. The claimant had good cause to believe that his claim was in order.

For those reasons the appeal is granted. The decision of the Board as well as the decision of the Commission are rescinded.

L.P. Landry

Umpire

Gatineau, Quebec
December 16, 2010