| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
no reasonable alternative |
|
Summary:
Claimant left his employment after a reduction in salary of just over 30%. Umpire ruled that if the claimant had remained in his old job with reduced income, he would at least have had a job and would have been able to take the necessary time to find other insurable employment. He preferred to receive UI benefits, which gave him less income, even with a reduced salary. Umpire found that this solution was not reasonable, and even more obviously was not the reasonable solution as defined by the legislation.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
significant change in salary |
|
Summary:
Claimant left his employment after a reduction in salary of just over 30%. Umpire ruled that if the claimant had remained in his old job with reduced income, he would at least have had a job and would have been able to take the necessary time to find other insurable employment. He preferred to receive UI benefits, which gave him less income, even with a reduced salary. Umpire found that this solution was not reasonable, and even more obviously was not the reasonable solution as defined by the legislation.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
working conditions |
salary |
|
Summary:
Claimant left his employment after a reduction in salary of just over 30%. Umpire ruled that if the claimant had remained in his old job with reduced income, he would at least have had a job and would have been able to take the necessary time to find other insurable employment. He preferred to receive UI benefits, which gave him less income, even with a reduced salary. Umpire found that this solution was not reasonable, and even more obviously was not the reasonable solution as defined by the legislation.
