Decision 18413

Summary:

When the issue of refusal to accept suitable employment arises, the Board should consider 4 questions: 1) was there a refusal; 2) was the employment offered suitable; 3) was there good cause for the refusal; 4) what disqualification period is appropriate.

---

Summary:

The test of good cause, now settled by the jurisprudence, is whether the claimant acted in a manner which a reasonable person would normally be expected to follow in similar circumstances.

---

Summary:

The 2-week disqualification was imposed likely due to the potential lenth of the work offered. I would note, however, that the work offered was not guaranteed to last 2 weeks, and in view of the extenuating circumstances such as noise and dust, a reduction to 1 week is warranted.

---

Summary:

Claimant contends that the Commission should not interfere with the internal workings of the Union so long as job offers are manned. This is based on the Union Hiring Hall agreement. The tenor of CUB 5426 is that the Commission cannot contract out of the requirements of s.25(a). The claimant was fully entitled to believe he would get a better (longer) job in the near future and indeed he did, but once a suitable job offer is refused, UI must cease. There is no question in the Union agreement that one may refuse a job offer and retain his position on the priority list for a better or longer job offer. However, it is not an option that he be permitted to refuse a job and continue on UI. Some work ispreferable to no work.

---

Summary:

The assessment of whether work offered to a claimant is suitable is a question of fact to be based on objective factors and not on the basis of personal preference. The assessement will vary with the conditions of employment and with the economic conditions of the community.

---