Summary of Issue: Workforce Reduction

Decision A0107.10 Full Text of Decision A0107.10

The claimant was a shareholder, partner and officer of a company. As a result of financial difficulties of the company, it was agreed that the claimant's partner would buy the claimant's shares in the business. The buyout allowed the company to carry on its operations and saved most of the employees' jobs. The FCA found that the claimant had not met the requirement of s. 51(2)(d) of the EIR which states that the employer must document the requirements of s. 51(2)(a)(b)(c) of the EIR. Finally, with respect to 29(c)(vii) of the EIA, the FCA found that the record revealed that the claimant had never provided «reduction of salary» as a reason for leaving his employment.

Decision 69332 Full Text of Decision 69332

The employer did not meet or was unable to meet the standards required under Section 51 of the EI Regulations prior to the claimant's leaving. The workforce reduction was more virtual than real because the company continued to hire. The company did not establish that the claimant's leaving preserved another employee's job and that the company's objective was a permanent reduction in the overall number of factory employees.

Decision 68088 Full Text of Decision 68088

While it is true that the appellant accepted an offer to leave his employment voluntarily in connection with a workforce reduction process undertaken by his employer, as contemplated in section 51 of the Employment Insurance Regulations, it is also true that his departure did not satisfy the other criterion set out in section 51(1)(b), in that by leaving, he was not preserving the employment of a co-worker.

Decision 64325 Full Text of Decision 64325

The Umpire stated that section 51 of the Regulations exists for one specific purpose: by leaving, the employee preserves the employment of a co-worker who would otherwise have been laid off. The facts show that there was no official work force reduction process in place at the time the claimant decided to leave and no evidence was presented to suggest that the employee who filled the claimant's position when she left would otherwise have lost his or her employment. The judge concluded that she did not have just cause for leaving within the meaning of the legislation as she had the alternative of remaining employed.

Decision 56691 Full Text of Decision 56691

Claimant resigned and accepted a buyout package offered to the employees. Although she had high seniority, she chose to take the buyout so that others could remain employed. The Commission determined that the claimant made a personal decision to accept the buyout and that SS. 51(1) of the EIR was not met. Evidence shows that the overall objective of the employer was to reduce labour costs, not to decrease the total number of employees. Claimant appeal dismissed.

Decision 45806 Full Text of Decision 45806

Claimant alleged that departure was part of a workforce reduction program; BOR agreed. Error of law, according to the Umpire. An explicit piece of evidence on record indicates that the employer's policy of encouraging retirement did not have the effect of protecting the other employees' jobs. In addition, the employer confirmed that no one would have been laid off, even if no employee had accepted the offer made.

Decision 45745 Full Text of Decision 45745

As per a clause in the union agreement, claimant accepted to leave his employment for what he termed "inverse seniority". Commission ruled that claimant was on a voluntary layoff and that the termination did not constitute just cause. At the BOR hearing, claimant alleged that the Reg. applicable to a "workforce reduction process" should apply. Request denied and decision maintained by Umpire who found that the strict requirements of the Regulation were not met.

Decision 36889 Full Text of Decision 36889

For the exception in section 56.1 of the Regulations to apply, there must be evidence that a workforce reduction process occurred that was initiated by the employer and had as its objective a permanent reduction in the overall number of employees, and that the claimant's leaving resulted in the actual preservation of the employment of a co-worker. The claimant did not leave because his position was abolished, but because he wanted the money he would receive on retirement.

Decision 34458 Full Text of Decision 34458

According to the employer, positions were abolished by attrition. The beneficiary chose to retire in order to receive the early retirement package and take advantage of the pension offered by the employer. This does not meet the criteria for a staff cut program set forth in s. 56.1 of the Regulations.

Decision A-0173.95 Full Text of Decision A-0173.95

Case identical to Pierre Pilon. See summary indexed under A-0174.95

Decision A-0174.95 Full Text of Decision A-0174.95

The Quebec Department of Transport cut 1,385 positions after responsibility for maintaining the road system was transferred to municipalities. The testimony of the employer's regional personnel department head was deemed sufficient to justify personnel cuts within the meaning of R 56.1.

Decision A-0175.95 Full Text of Decision A-0175.95

Case identical to Pierre Pilon. See summary indexed under A-0174.95

Decision 29011 Full Text of Decision 29011

Due to a decline in business (a store) the employer was forced to lay off employees. People with more seniority were given the option of being laid off first. I direct the Commission to further pursue with the employer the possibility of documenting theelements of a workforce reduction process.

Decision 27288 Full Text of Decision 27288

Claimant's further submission is that she was advised, upon inquiry, before she resigned that she would be eligible for UI. That will not assist her having regard to all the provisions of reg. 56.1 and the evidence in relation thereto. She said she alsorelied on a book distributed by CEIC on UI. No evidence that the co-worker in surplus status would have been terminated had claimant not resigned. Weight of evidence to the contrary. The co-worker continued to be employed, although in surplus for 2½ years, and was moved from surplus into a position vacated by claimant's resignation.

Decision 27173 Full Text of Decision 27173

Retirement incentive program to facilitate a person's transition to retirement and encourage a healthy turnover of staff and create opportunities for restructuring and career advancement within the organization and assist the Durham College in Oshawa in meeting its financial responsibilities. Section 56 requires that the process established by the employer must lead to a permanent reduction in the total number of employees, i.e. even if no worker took advantage of the offer, the employer would nonetheless be laying off workers to reduce the workforce by the number initially anticipated.

Decision 27011 Full Text of Decision 27011

Refer to: A-0174.95

Decision 24993 Full Text of Decision 24993

S. 56.1 refers to company downsizing where any number of employees could be laid off and several accept separation so that others will not be terminated. It is not meant to extend to one particular job being phased out of existence and the worker has no remaining options, other than when to leave.