IN THE MATTER of the Employment Insurance Act
- and -
IN THE MATTER of a claim for benefits by
VERA KRAJIC
- and -
IN THE MATTER of an appeal by the Claimant to an
Umpire from a decision by the Board of Referees given
at Kelowna, British Columbia, on January 19th, 1999.
Heard at Kelowna, British Columbia, on Friday, October 29th, 1999.
DECISION
THE HONOURABLE W.J. HADDAD, Q.C., UMPIRE:
The appeal was filed by the claimant. The issue is whether claimant voluntarily quit her job with Lake City Casino Ltd. on October 15, 1998 without just cause.
An initial claim for benefits was established for the claimant, effective October 19, 1998. In my view, for the reasons which follow, this appeal should be allowed. The applicable legislation is subsection 29(c) which reads as follows:
(c) just cause for voluntarily leaving an employment or taking leave from an employment exists if the claimant had no reasonable alternative to leaving or taking leave, having regard to all the circumstances, including any of the following:
(iv) working conditions that constitute a danger to health or safety,
(vi) reasonable assurance of another employment in the immediate future,
The claimant worked at two jobs. She started to work at the Quail Ridge Golf Course on August 19, 1997. She commenced the second job at the Lake City Casino on October 19, 1997. She terminated the Casino job on October 15, 1997 with the intention of continuing with her first job at the Golf Club. She thought the Golf Club job would continue into the winter months to keep the dining facilities available for the Christmas season. To her disappointment the Golf Club laid her off on October 27, 1997 to prepare for the construction of a new club house.
In her notice of appeal of December 21, 1998, claimant with clarity set out her reasons for quitting the Casino and retaining her job at the Golf Club. Rather than paraphrase, I prefer to quote her words:
"To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to appeal the decision made by HRCC about my claim for EI benefits. You claim that I quit my job without just cause. I was working at the time at another job and felt that this job was going to go all year round, with Christmas parties and other functions that could be held throughout the year. I was making more money at the golf course and choice that job over the other. There were other circumstances that made me choice the golf course over the Casino. The atmosphere at the Casino is not one that is good for one's health. The smoke and the lack of adequate air control, the lack of air conditions throughout the summer. All these health factors also came under consideration when I was making my choice. A personal problem was also an issue. My common law husband also works at the Casino and I was in the process of leaving him. By continuing to work at the Casino I would be forced to see him at work and this I did not want. These were the circumstances surrounding my leaving the Casino. I was mistaken about the golf course going all year round, they decided to build a new clubhouse over the winter instead. I was willing to work there all year round. Please take these matters into consideration when you review my case."
The claimant is not expected to keep two jobs in order to qualify for unemployment benefits and she is entitled, in good faith, to decide which of the two jobs she should retain and she acted reasonably in keeping the first job.
The Commission Representation to the Board of Referees, in my view, did not fairly present claimant's reasons for leaving the Casino or consider the fact that the Golf Club job was the job she preferred and provided her with the best income. The Commission treated claimant's description of the Casino's environment as unworthy of consideration. Although she did not produce an environmental report, or a medical certificate as suggested by the Commission, the environmental conditions to which she alluded ought not to have been summarily rejected. The evidence provided by the Casino that it "spent in excess of $1, 200.00 to replace, maintain and address air quality concerns" lends credibility to the claimant's description of the Casino's environment. The Commission, instead played up the claimant's "personal problem with her common law husband" as a reason for leaving the Casino.
The Board of Referees did not take into account all of the material factors to which I have alluded. Moreover, it referred to the Golf Club employment as a seasonal position and that finding is not supported by the evidence.
The claimant has demonstrated just cause for leaving the Casino, even discounting the environment there she did not have to work at two jobs and she was entitled to select the job she preferred and where the earnings exceeded the earnings at the Casino. That was a reasonable choice. It was her misfortune that the Golf Club decided without her knowledge, to close down to replace its club house over the winter months. Claimant had reasonable assurance when she accepted the Golf Club job in August of 1997 that she would be working there full time and that it would operate over the winter months.
The Board erred in having based its decision on an erroneous finding of fact and without regard for the material before it.
For the foregoing reasons the appeal is allowed to qualify claimant for benefits.
W.J. Haddad, Q.C.
Umpire
Dated at Edmonton, Alberta,
December 16th, 1999.