Summary of Issue: Seasonal Employment

Decision A0444.08 Full Text of Decision A0444.08

The Umpire upheld the ruling by the BOR that stated the claimant was justified in leaving her job to seek better working conditions. The Commission maintained that the members in the majority had erred in fact and in law when they concluded that the claimant had shown just cause within the meaning of the Act to leave her job. The Commission maintained that the BOR had failed to consider the fact that the claimant had left a permanent job to accept one that did not guarantee permanence and that had essentially resulted in unemployment. The Commission maintained that the BOR should consider the issue of the amount of time remaining in the job prior to the end of the school year and the resulting loss of employment.

Decision A0518.08 Full Text of Decision A0518.08

The claimant had a permanent part-time job as a gas station attendant. He was paid $8 an hour for 15 to 20 hours of work per week. He left that job for another seasonal job in construction that guaranteed him 150 hours of work at $18.60 per hour. During his work term at his new job, he accumulated 184 hours of insurable employment between October 8 and November 23, 2007. The Board of Referees concluded that the claimant was justified in leaving his job to accept another one in a field where he could improve his financial situation. According to the FCA, in the Langlois case, reasonable assurance of another job in the immediate future must be assessed in relation to all the circumstances surrounding the claimant's departure. In the case of a seasonal job, the moment at which the voluntary leave occurs and the duration of the seasonal job are the most important circumstances to consider in determining whether the leave was a reasonable solution and therefore justified. This decision reaffirms the fact that a worker's desire to improve his/her financial situation cannot be accepted as a justification for voluntarily leaving the original job.

Decision 70481 Full Text of Decision 70481

The claimant quit her permanent employment to start a seasonal job. The Umpire ruled that the Board of Referees confused the concepts of "legitimacy" and "only reasonable alternative" when it determined that voluntarily leaving her employment constituted the claimant's only reasonable alternative because she had a reasonable assurance of other employment in the immediate future. The Board failed to take into account the consequences of the claimant's decision to leave her regular employment for seasonal employment.

Decision A0075.07 Full Text of Decision A0075.07

This case involves a claimant who quit indeterminate permanent employment in August for seasonal permanent employment at much higher wages expecting to last until December. The claimant applied for benefit when laid off in October. The Court said that in such a case the timing of the voluntary leaving and the expected duration of the seasonal employment are the most important circumstances to consider in determining whether the leaving was a reasonable alternative. Leaving to take seasonal employment when the work season is ending and with no expectation that the requalification conditions of section 30 of the EI Act could be met creates an unjustified certainty of unemployment.