TRANSLATION
IN THE MATTER OF THE EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
and
IN THE MATTER of a claim for benefit by
Michelle LOSIER
and
IN THE MATTER of an appeal to an Umpire by the Commission from the decision of a Board of Referees given on September 17, 2002 at Bathurst, New Brunswick
DECISION
GUY GOULARD, Umpire
The claimant worked at Clinique Chiroplus from April 30, 2001 to June 27, 2002. She filed a claim for benefits on July 2, 2002. A benefit period was established effective June 30, 2002. The Commission subsequently determined that the claimant had left her employment without just cause, whereas this was not the only reasonable alternative in her case. An indefinite disqualification was imposed as of July 1, 2002.
The claimant appealed the Commission's decision to the Board of Referees, which allowed the appeal. The Commission referred the Board's decision to the Umpire. This appeal was heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on May 15, 2003. The claimant was not present, although duly summoned. The Commission was represented by Me Marie Crowley.
In her claim for benefit (Exhibit 2), the claimant indicated that she had voluntarily left her job because she was returning to school in September 2002. She explained that her employer had had to let her go because a new secretary began working at the beginning of July and the employer was unable to pay two secretaries for July and August.
In Exhibit 3, the employer confirms that the claimant had been laid off because she was returning to school in the autumn, which fact compelled him to hire a new employee, who began working on July 1, and the employer could not pay two people.
In Exhibit 4, the claimant confirms that she was returning to school in September 2002 and that she was supposed to work until the end of August 2002, but her job ended on June 27 because of the reasons stated above.
In her appeal letter to the Board of Referees, the claimant states that in January 2002 she had informed her employer that she was returning to school in September, but would be available and willing to work until August 31. She wrote:
[TRANSLATION]
"Due to certain unavoidable circumstances, my bosses had to terminate my employment earlier than planned, that is, June 27. In short, from July 1 to August 31 I became unemployed despite my availability and desire to be in the labour market."
She adds that the boss told her that she had been very respectful in informing the employer about her departure long in advance, but if she had waited until the last minute to announce her departure, she would probably have kept her job until then.
She concludes by saying that she has no income for the two months in question and needs employment insurance benefits.
The Board of Referees' decision reads as follows:
[TRANSLATION]
"We agree that the claimant was available for work and the claimant did not leave her employment, but rather, was laid off by her employer. The claimant had a good reason; she did not quit her job; rather, this was an involuntary loss of employment.
Under the terms of section 29(c)(xiv), the claimant did not leave her employment and should be given benefits for July and August."
The Commission contends that the Board made an error in law in its decision. The Commission submits that it was the decision to return to school that caused the job loss and that this does not constitute just cause under the Act. The Commission contends that the claimant had another reasonable alternative rather than quitting her job to return to school and therefore, did not qualify for employment insurance benefits.
I do not agree with the Commission's position. When she informed her employer of her departure, the claimant indicated her availability and desire to work until the end of August. Her unemployment for the months of July andAugust was the direct result of circumstances related to the employer's needs, not the claimant. She became unemployed for these two months owing to circumstances totally beyond her control, although indirectly this situation resulted from her decision to return to school.
The purpose of the employment insurance system is to provide workers who have participated in the program through their contributions with financial assistance in the event of involuntary job loss. This was exactly the claimant's position during July and August 2002. She was not claiming benefits after the month ofAugust because after this date, she was pursuing her studies.
Therefore, I agree with the decision of the Board of Referees, which correctly assessed the facts and made a decision based on the Act.
The appeal is disallowed.
GUY GOULARD
UMPIRE
OTTAWA, Ontario
June 2, 2003