Decision 18058

Summary:

Both decisions make no assessment of whether claimant's decision to elect voluntary lay-off was made with "just cause". They merely find that he voluntary left his employment. This is an error of law. In such circumstances there is more justification for one imposing the burden of his unemployment on the UI system than is the case where a vacancy in the employer's work force is created. This alone is not just cause but must be weighed amongst other factors. The context was one in which the employer was laying off a large percentage of its work force. What is labelled a voluntary lay-off is really more of a lay-off selection process. Factors to consider: differences in conditions, remoteness from residence,probable length of job. Acceptance of voluntary lay-off in this case is not the same as the voluntary leaving employment in a situation where an unfilled vacancy in the employer's work force is thereby created. Someone was going to be unemployed, either claimant or a co-worker. The fact that there is a possibility that a job may be of short duration or not available when one arrives, because of bumping by someone else, is not enough for just cause. However, a significant probability that this is the case would be a significantfactor.

---

Summary:

Gang railway worker who accepted a voluntary lay-off. The jobs offered to him were by and large in remote areas, far from his normal residence, and for many of the locations the company did not provide living accommodations. He would have had to pay for2 residences.

---

Summary:

Both decisions make no assessment of whether claimant's decision to elect voluntary lay-off was made with "just cause". They merely find that he voluntary left his employment. This is an error of law.

---