IN THE MATTER OF the Unemployment Insurance Act,
R.S.C. 1985, c. U-1.
- and -
IN THE MATTER OF a claim for benefit by
Edward J. Lane
- and -
IN THE MATTER OF an appeal by the Claimant
from a decision of the Board of Referees given on
March 28, 1995 at Gander, Newfoundland
DECISION
Appeal heard at Gander, Newfoundland on June 11, 1996
THE HON. R. C. STEVENSON, UMPIRE
Mr. Lane was unable to attend the hearing of his appeal and has agreed that it be disposed of on the basis of the documents filed.
Mr. Lane was studying for a degree in Physical Education. Records of Employment included in the record for this appeal show that he had been employed from May 13, 1994 to October 29, 1994 by The New Majestic Inc. which operated a club in St. John's. During that time he also worked at the Riverdale Tennis Club from June 13 to October 8, and for CSI Sea Products from May 29 to June 4 and from September 4 to 17.
At the end of October he was required, as part of his course, to work as a volunteer with the Childrens Movement Program from 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. every Saturday. Those hours conflicted with his Saturday hours at The New Majestic and the employer could not change his working hours. Although the record of employment notes "Return to School" as the reason for separation, Mr. Lane did not quit in order to return to school but rather to meet his course requirements.
The Commission said he was disqualified from receiving benefits because he had voluntarily left his; employment without just cause. The Board of Referees dismissed his appeal.
Subsection 28(4) of the Unemployment Insurance Act says just cause exists where, having regard to all the circumstances, the claimant had no reasonable alternative to leaving the employment.
Mr. Lane was available for work during hours that did not conflict with his course requirements. The record shows that he is one of those persons who has established a pattern of studying and working at the same time. While that is really only relevant when the Commission says one cannot prove availability for work, it must be mentioned.
What was Mr. Lane, s reasonable alternative? Would it have been a reasonable alternative for him to drop his course and continue working as a busboy and cleanup labourer? I do not think so.
I would make a distinction between one who leaves work to enroll in college or university and one who is already enrolled and gives up a job held simultaneously with his studies - not because he cannot do both - but because a conflict develops between the hours of work and course hours prescribed midterm by the university. In such circumstances the student claimant has no reasonable alternative to leaving his employment.
The appeal is allowed and Mr. Lane's disqualification is set aside.
Ronald C. Stevenson
UMPIRE
FREDERICTON, Prince Edward Island
26 June, 1996