Summary of Issue: Impending Layoff

Decision A0071.12 Full Text of Decision A0071.12

The claimant’s departure from his employment was precipitated by complaints received by his employer from customers advising that the applicant had not given them the appropriate credits for returned bread. The employer’s policy provided that different types of bread were subject to different return credit rates. The claimant was applying one rate, the lowest credit rate. As a result, a payment of over $9000 was not appropriately reimbursed to the customers and the claimant’s commissions were overstated. The customers informed the employer that the claimant would no longer be permitted on the customers’ premises. The claimant was offered a similar position on a different route by his employer. He declined the offer and left his employment. The FCA dismissed the application on the ground that monetary relief is not available on the application for judicial review in front oh the FCA.

Decision 46155 Full Text of Decision 46155

Claimant quit his job after being sentenced to a federal penitentiary and did not want to advise his employer of the situation because he preferred not to be fired. Claimant indicated that he had no reasonable alternative but to leave his employment and the BOR allowed his appeal ruling that he did not leave his job voluntarily. Referring to the FCA decision in Smith (A-0875.96), the Commission submits that although the claimant was incarcerated for an offence committed prior to his employment, his incarceration prevented him from reporting to work which is a breach of an express duty in the employment contract. The decision of the BOR was set aside by the Umpire.

Decision 27411 Full Text of Decision 27411

Claimant received notice that her employment would terminate in 2 weeks. She decided to leave immediately. Held by the Board that she had no job to leave as it was terminated. Error in law. The layoff notice did not immediately terminate her employment. She was still employed at the date she quit.

Decision 24648 Full Text of Decision 24648

Claimant was given 2 months' notice that his job would terminate 31-8-92. He chose to leave on 31-7-92. He said he was told he could leave at any time. The fact that he was free to leave at any time does not legally constitute just cause. He could have worked one more month and should have done so.

Decision 22035 Full Text of Decision 22035

Claimant left when she found out that without her knowledge her employer was trying to replace her by having the job posted at the Employment Centre. This does not mean that she was constructively dismissed. She should have looked for another job before quitting.

Decision 21881 Full Text of Decision 21881

Claimant was given 2 weeks' notice: work unacceptable. She chose not to work for those 2 weeks. Based on this, the Board removed the 7-week disqualification. If a layoff is imminent, does that constitute just cause? I cannot find that the Board made a perverse decision.

Decision 20772 Full Text of Decision 20772

The fact that he believed he was about to be laid off in any event certainly does not constitute just cause. Furthermore, it appears he was merely acting on the assumption he was about to be laid off since the employer maintains that his job would have lasted for another 6 weeks.

Decision 15200 Full Text of Decision 15200

Informed that he would be laid off in 3 days and as he found this notice to be too short, he notified the employer, as a protest that he would not be in work the next day. He then changed his mind, but someone else replaced him.

Decision 11645 Full Text of Decision 11645

Dissatisfaction with the amount of work available and the prospects of an impending layoff are not sufficient, according to the decided cases, to constitute just cause, particularly where claimant has no alternative employment arranged.