CUB 60083

KRINDLE, Hon.

The commission appeals a decision of the board of referees holding that the claimant had just cause voluntarily to terminate her employment. The commission has advised that it is not appealing the finding of the board that the claimant had proved her availability for work.

The claimant quit her job, primarily because her eleven year old son was struggling at school and, in the claimant's opinion, required home schooling. The claimant was a teacher, working in Fort Frances. She was also the single parent of her son, living with him in Emo, Ontario. She was able, by reason of her profession, to assess the extent to which her son was falling behind in his schooling and the serious long-term consequences that were likely to result if the problem was not meaningfully addressed.

The issue of whether the claimant had other reasonable alternatives short of quitting was addressed by the board. The claimant had asked for a leave of absence and was refused. She attempted to find alternatives that would work for her son as well as her employer, but there were none. She attempted to have her son's educational needs met through the employer, but, as the employer stated, "After some discussion and thought, the school staff and Denise decided that this arrangement would not work out for either party."

The commission questions whether the documentary evidence is sufficient to show that the claimant might not have pursued other alternatives to leaving, such as her working with the child at night and on the weekends. The claimant advises that she testified before the board about her various efforts to work with the child during non-working hours and told the board of the failure of those efforts. The commission questions whether the efforts to have her child's educational needs met by the claimant's employer were sufficient. The claimant advises that, while the principal had agreed to that plan, the individual teachers whose availability would have been necessary to work with the child, were not willing to make themselves available to school the child on a full-time basis. That was the information that resulted in the mutual decision that the alternative was not workable. She further advises that this information was made available to the board orally.

There was certainly evidence before the board that the claimant had fulfilled the requirement that she make reasonable efforts to find alternatives, short of quitting. The board's decision in that respect is in accordance with the law and is reasonably founded in the evidence.

On the issue whether the claimant's leaving to care for the needs of her child was necessary and amounted to just cause, I find no error in law by the board and I find that the facts, in this highly unusual case, reasonably supported the decision of the board.

The appeal of the commission is dismissed.

Ruth Krindle

UMPIRE

OTTAWA, Ontario
April 1st, 2004