CUB 57874

R. C. STEVENSON, UMPIRE:

Ms. Michaud 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 she had voluntarily left her employment without just cause.

Ms. Michaud, who is now 52, was employed by Crystal Flooring Ltd. in Grand Falls, New Brunswick from June 18, 2001 to September 21, 2002. Her hours which had been between 42.5 and 50 hours weekly were cut to 32 hours. Her hourly wage rate was $9.50. She had also worked part-time until June 2002 as a sales clerk at another business where, when she worked, she earned $54.08 weekly. Ms. Michaud had been through a divorce and her mother, who she had helped care for, died of cancer in September 2002. Ms. Michaud's two children live in Mississauga. Finding herself in debt and going behind, after her mother died Ms. Michaud decided to move to Mississauga where she understood there were employment opportunities for bilingual persons. After four months she found a job from which she earns $12,000 a year more than she had been earning in Grand Falls.

When Ms. Michaud applied for unemployment benefits in October 2002 the Commission said she had voluntarily left her employment without just cause.

In their decision the Board of Referees said:

Finding of Facts:

The claimant stated that the real reason for moving to Mississauga was to get better employment opportunity. New Brunswick did not provide a comfortable living situation. In fact she would have gone on welfare. It is mainly because of the poor economic condition of the place. Otherwise she would not have quit her job there.

Application of Law:

. . .

In this case the claimant made a personal choice to quit her job to relocate from New Brunswick to Mississauga because her wages were so poor and she found it difficult to make a living. Her family is in Mississauga and better job opportunities are there. She had an alternatives (sic) before quitting she should have secured a job in Mississauga then quit. Her decision to move took years and she had enough time to find a job in Mississauga before she made the move.

Conclusion:

The Board looked at this case very carefully and is very sympathetic towards the claimant and her efforts for survival. Unfortunately the Board cannot go in to the social considerations as the mandate of the Board is limited to legal consideration.

In this case, the claimant made a personal decision choice to quit her job and relocate to Mississauga from New Brunswick. The Board understands the decision of the claimant but finds that the decision is not just cause for quitting her job.

In my view the Board of Referees made an erroneous finding of fact when it said Ms. Michaud had the alternative of finding a job in Mississauga before quitting her job in Grand Falls. Distance, the costs of travel, and the necessity of being available for personal interviews made that an impractical and unreasonable alternative.

The Board of Referees having noted that Ms. Michaud's decision was prompted by poor wages and the difficulty of making a living failed to give sufficient weight to the economic circumstances that were the primary reason Ms. Michaud left her job. Economic circumstances were the cause for leaving; family circumstances only influenced the choice of place of relocation.

In determining whether a claimant had just cause to leave a job the Employment Insurance Act requires us to have regard to all the circumstances - including economic circumstances. Failure to consider and give sufficient weight to such circumstances is an error of law. I refer to my decisions in CUBS 35229, 46437 and 54416.

The appeal is allowed and the disqualification is set aside.

RONALD C. STEVENSON

Umpire

FREDERICTON, NEW BRUNSWICK
June 16, 2003