CUB 78198

IN THE MATTER of the EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT

- and -

IN THE MATTER of a claim by
G.P.

- and -

IN THE MATTER of an appeal to an Umpire by the claimant
from a decision by the Board of Referees given on
March 1, 2011 at Edmonton, Alberta

DECISION

L.-P. LANDRY, Umpire

The claimant appeals from a decision of the Board of Referees which allowed the employer’s appeal from the Commission’s decision to allow the claimant’s claim for benefit without imposing a disqualification. The employer’s position was that the claimant had voluntarily left her employment without just cause.

Originally the Commission concluded that the claimant voluntarily left her employment with just cause. The claimant stated at the time that she was renting a room at the residence of her brother. After an incident where the RCMP was called she had to leave her room within 24 hours. She decided to come back with her family in Ontario. Before the Board the Commission maintained its position that the claimant had shown just cause for leaving her employment.

The facts pertaining to the predicament of the claimant are not contested. The employer appealed the Commission’s decision in the belief that the Commission had concluded that the claimant had been wrongfully dismissed. The employer and the claimant did not appear before the Board. At the time of the hearing the claimant was a resident of Ontario and she could not afford to travel to Alberta for the hearing.

The Board indicated that the claimant had failed to look at other alternatives before leaving her employment. For instance the Board indicated that she could have requested a leave of absence. The employer in its letter to the Commission indicates that a leave of absence, if requested would have been denied.

The specific details of the incident which caused the intervention of the RCMP and the request that the claimant leave her brother’s residence are not on the record save the fact the window of the claimant’s bedroom had been broken during the night.

The evidence with respect to the difficulty in finding lodging in Fort McMurray, and the high cost of such lodging is not contradicted.

The Board took the position that the claimant left her employment for personal reasons and that such reasons could not amount to ‘’just cause’’.

The Commission suggested that the matter should be returned to a new Board for further consideration of the evidence. As noted above one of the main reason for the decision is the fact that the Board considered that the claimant should have a requested a leave of absence. This finding is unreasonable in light of the representations of the employer who indicated that he would not have granted such a leave of absence.

Considering the above I do not believe that the interest of justice require that the matter be returned to a new Board. I find that the facts of this case show that the claimant had just cause for leaving her employment.

For those reasons the appeal is allowed, the decision of the Board is set aside and the original decision of the Commission is reinstated.

L.P. Landry
UMPIRE

Gatineau, Quebec
December 14, 2011