In the Matter of the Employment Insurance Act,
S.C. 1996, c. 23
- and -
In the Matter of a claim for unemployment benefits by
Anna Curtis
- and -
In the Matter of an Appeal by the Claimant from the decision of a
Board of Referees given at Burnaby, British Columbia
on May 24, 2001
Appeal heard at New Glasgow, Nova Scotia on May 17, 2002
R. C. STEVENSON, UMPIRE:
Ms. Curtis appeals from the decision of a Board of Referees dismissing her appeal from a ruling of the Commission that she was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because, during her qualifying period, she had voluntarily left an employment without just cause.
The record discloses some difficulty about the timing of the hearing before the Board of Referees and I would be prepared to find that Ms. Curtis did not have an adequate opportunity to present her case. That would result in the matter being referred back for re-hearing. As Ms. Curtis is now living in Nova Scotia and the employer is in British Columbia, rather than send the matter back I will give the decision the Board of Referees should have given. The Board of Referees also made its findings of fact without regard for the evidence about the circumstances mentioned in the following paragraph.
Ms. Curtis had been laid off from a job she had held for 14 years. She was an experienced dental receptionist. She applied for a position in another clinic and accepted the position believing she would be replacing a person who was leaving. It turned out that that person decided not to leave. Ms. Curtis was hired anyway but the resulting situation was an overcrowded office in which Ms. Curtis had neither a work station nor a desk. While a desire to work only part time and not to have to work late in the day were factors in Ms. Curtis's decision to leave after only eight days, I am satisfied that the major factor in her decision was the unsatisfactory office arrangement. Ms. Curtis did not get the job she applied for and was offered. The situation was analogous to a significant change in work duties which is one of the specific circumstances enumerated in paragraph 29(c) of the Employment Insurance Act as a circumstance to be considered in assessing just cause for leaving an employment. It is similar to CUB 44290 where I said "Clearly this is a case where there were significant changes in work duties. The position for which [the claimant] was hired was misrepresented by the employer ...". Although the claimant stuck it out much longer in that case, in my view Ms. Curtis had just cause to leave when she did.
The appeal is allowed and the disqualification is set aside.
RONALD C. STEVENSON
Umpire
NEW GLASGOW, NOVA SCOTIA
May 17, 2002