Decision A-0308.97
Full Text of Decision A-0308.97
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
|
|
Summary:
As a result of an investigation the Commission disqualified the claimant from benefits because he quit his job without just cause. Also a penalty was imposed because based on the evidence the ROE was false. BOR find the claimant's statements inconsistent that in fact, he was not laid off due to shortage but rather he quit and the ROE was incorrect. Umpire was unable to find that the BOR made any reviewable error in its decison. Decision's maintained by the Court.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
misrepresentation |
|
|
Decision 75161
Full Text of Decision 75161
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
armed forces |
|
Summary:
The claimant is a Canadian citizen who lives in the United States, but is not allowed to work in that country. She was denied her benefits because she failed to prove that she was available for work within the meaning of section 18 of the E.I. Act. The claimant’s husband was chosen to be a Canadian representative at the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. The Canadian Department of National Defence had signed an agreement with the American government stipulating that "IMSs or their alien family members are not permitted to seek or accept employment during their stay in the United States". The claimant’s appeal is dismissed by the Umpire.
Decision 68896
Full Text of Decision 68896
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
armed forces |
|
Summary:
An unwanted transfer is not just cause for leaving an employment. There is a grievance system in place for such complaints. A military member does not initiate his own unemployment for such a reason. If the member should do so, he or she does not qualify for Employment Insurance benefits.
Decision 40765
Full Text of Decision 40765
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
armed forces |
|
Summary:
In the space of a few days, he was transferred to Borden, to Ottawa and to Petawawa. His family refused to follow him to Petawawa, and he therefore requested voluntary retirement. Umpire found that the claimant no doubt had good personal reasons for quitting, but a “reason” or “motive” is not synonymous with just cause.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
personal reasons |
moving |
|
Decision 27441
Full Text of Decision 27441
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
armed forces |
|
Summary:
There is no question here the claimant initiated the separation from his employment with Canadian Armed Forces. He sought a voluntary release for personal reasons. He ultimately made an unsuccessful attempt to have his release cancelled. Just cause not shown.
Decision 26603
Full Text of Decision 26603
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
armed forces |
|
Summary:
Although it may be reasonable not to desire to move from an area where one has purchased a house, I find it difficult to see this as just cause. Military service often involves moving to accept postings and by failing to continue his military service, he placed himself in a position of unemployment.
Decision 26595
Full Text of Decision 26595
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
armed forces |
|
Summary:
Claimant disqualified for the entire benefit period for having left his employment with the Armed Forces. His request for release was a hasty decision and he asked to rescind his resignation. His request was denied and he then filed a grievance. There is no question that he left voluntarily.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
voluntary leaving defined |
|
Decision A-0049.94
Full Text of Decision A-0049.94
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
armed forces |
|
Summary:
In CUB 8538 I held that failure to re-enlist in the Armed Forces after 5 years was not leaving without just cause. There is nothing in the legislation to make any distinction between this and renewal of an expired contract of civilian nature, as per Umpire. FC not persuaded that it should intervene.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
end of contract |
|
Decision 23828
Full Text of Decision 23828
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
armed forces |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0049.94
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
end of contract |
|
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
guidelines from the Commission |
|
Decision 19742A
Full Text of Decision 19742A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
armed forces |
|
Summary:
Claimant left upon being forced to accept a transfer and being unable to claim family moving expenses because the Armed Forces did not recognize common-law relationships for that purpose. The employment contract made it clear that relocation was a requirement of the employment, said the Board.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
transfer |
|
Decision 22574
Full Text of Decision 22574
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
armed forces |
|
Summary:
Claimant left his employment with the Armed Forces for educational purposes and agreed that he should not be entitled to UI benefits based on this reason.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
obligation to care for a child |
|
Decision 11625
Full Text of Decision 11625
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
armed forces |
|
Summary:
Joined army at age of 17, and after 4 1/2 years wanted new direction and would like to continue education. 6 week disqualification reduced to 2.
Decision A-0430.96
Full Text of Decision A-0430.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
decision by another body |
|
Summary:
Claimant disqualified for having voluntarily left his employment without just cause. Decision upheld by BOR and Umpire. Claimant sought reconsideration by way of a decision rendered by an adjudicator under the Labour Standards Act (LSA). Decision maintained by Umpire. FCA held that reconsideration of the umpire's decision based on the decision of an adjudicator made in paralleled proceedings taken pursuant to the LSA was unnecessary since the factual conclusions of the adjudicator were not "new facts" within S.86 of the U.I. Act and were irrelevant to the issues before the umpire.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
request for review |
new facts to BOR, Umpire or Commission |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
definition |
|
Decision 13448
Full Text of Decision 13448
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
decision by another body |
|
Summary:
Issue: did claimant leave voluntarily or was claimant dismissed? Decision made by Commission des normes du travail after hearing of board changes nothing.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
tantamount to leaving |
|
Decision 13240
Full Text of Decision 13240
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
decision by another body |
|
Summary:
There is no doubt that the Board correctly believed that the proceedings before the Human Rights Commission do not affect their statutory duties of adjudication pursuant to the UI Act.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
assess credibility |
duty |
Decision 74103
Full Text of Decision 74103
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
dismissal prior to leaving |
|
Summary:
On his application for benefits the claimant indicated he had quit his job because he was dealing with personal issues at home. The employer stated that the claimant was to be dismissed but chose to resign, therefore the code was changed. The claimant who was described as a "computer design" had downloaded some child pornography on his computer. He was eventually charged under the Criminal Code. He claimed he was innocent and that he had downloaded the material by accident. He chose to quit rather than be fired, as he understood the employer's reasons and did not want a dismissal on his record.
The appeal is dismissed
Decision 38480
Full Text of Decision 38480
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
dismissal prior to leaving |
|
Summary:
Claimant submitted a letter of resignation on 15-09-95 to be effective 19-10-95. However, on 29-09-95, the employer terminated the relationship. Held by Umpire that claimant did not leave his employment on 29-09-95. Reference made to two previous decisions: CUBs 13930 and 27487.
Decision 27487
Full Text of Decision 27487
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
dismissal prior to leaving |
|
Summary:
Notwithstanding that claimant's letter of resignation may have initiated the events that followed, the conditions of her letter were not met by her employer. Instead she was summarily dismissed on the spot. The actions of the employer resulted in a dismissal. She did not voluntarily leave that day.
Decision 13930
Full Text of Decision 13930
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
dismissal prior to leaving |
|
Summary:
Conditional resignation is a resignation if stated conditions accepted. Employer not entitled to accept resignation and reject conditions. Dismissal therefore occurred when instructed to vacate office, although claimant's letter may have initiated the events.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
voluntary leaving defined |
|
Decision 12173
Full Text of Decision 12173
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
dismissal prior to leaving |
|
Summary:
Gave 2 months notice to take effect 31-12. Terminated by employer on 6-12 because it is bad business to keep persons on after they had given notice. There was no grounds for holding that the claimant had left. He was dismissed.
Decision 20795
Full Text of Decision 20795
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
duration of disqualification |
|
Summary:
A 10-week period of disqualification has the effect of disqualifying the claimant for a period substantially in excess of the period of employment available to her (6 weeks) had she not left the job. It is my view the period should be reduced to the minimum period of 7 weeks.
Decision 17195
Full Text of Decision 17195
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
duration of disqualification |
|
Summary:
There are mitigating circumstances. Claimant is an honest person who has never abused the UI plan. He honestly believed that, eager to find work, he could try out this job and abandon it if unsuitable. He disclosed that day's work and pay. 6-week disqualification reduced to 3.
Decision 14596A
Full Text of Decision 14596A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
duration of disqualification |
|
Summary:
Claimant left after a few weeks following a dispute over commissions. This employment was found by claimant himself and not the Commission. This indicates he was making an effort to secure employment and such initiative should not be overlooked.
Decision 13937
Full Text of Decision 13937
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
duration of disqualification |
|
Summary:
As the claimant would have been out of work within 2 weeks after he left to take a course, it appears that the 6-week disqualification was excessive and I direct that this be reduced to 2 weeks.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
weight of statements |
|
Decision 13742
Full Text of Decision 13742
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
duration of disqualification |
|
Summary:
Claimant found this job on his own and was prepared to take work with which he was unfamiliar and which he found very difficult. Within weeks of leaving, he found not one but 2 jobs and held them both until one was finished. Disqualification reduced from 4 to 1 week.
Decision 12814
Full Text of Decision 12814
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
duration of disqualification |
|
Summary:
The maximum disqualification is 6 weeks but, since the claimant quit her job only 2 weeks before it was due to expire in any event, a 2-week disqualification is perfectly reasonable.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
courses of study |
|
|
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
meaning |
Decision 10615
Full Text of Decision 10615
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
duration of disqualification |
|
Summary:
Board concluded that insured had just cause for leaving, and accordingly reduced disqualification from 6 weeks to 3. Mitigating circumstances may be considered only where insured left without just cause.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
meaning of a term |
|
Decision A-0917.83
Full Text of Decision A-0917.83
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
duration of disqualification |
|
Summary:
Decision appealed from set aside and matter referred back to Umpire to decide whether 6 week disqualification imposed on applicant should be reduced.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
length |
powers |
Decision A-0076.02
Full Text of Decision A-0076.02
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
employment |
|
Summary:
The claimant left his employment because he had an opportunity to get a better job, but after attending a training institute. The Court found that the BOR misused the applicable test in concluding that the claimant had acted as a prudent person would and under undue pressure by the employer. The Court stated that when faced with a determination on just cause, the BOR must determine if the claimant had "no alternative to leaving, having regard to all the circumstances"
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
other employment |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
personal reasons |
courses of study |
|
Decision A-0089.02
Full Text of Decision A-0089.02
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
employment |
definition |
Summary:
The claimant, after applying for employment, attended what he thought was a training session that day, then left without returning. A record of employment and a pay cheque were issued but never picked-up by the claimant. The Court found that, where the evidence supports that conclusion, the claimant will be considered as being employed, even though the claimant may have had reason to think otherwise. The application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was dismissed.
Decision 53282
Full Text of Decision 53282
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
employment |
definition |
Summary:
Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0089.02
Decision 39026
Full Text of Decision 39026
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
employment |
definition |
Summary:
Subsection 28(3) of the Act provides that the term “employment” refers to “the claimant’s last employment immediately prior to the time his claim for benefit is made unless otherwise prescribed by the regulations.” Section 59.1 of the Regulations provides that employment held by a claimant during his benefit period must be taken into account for the purposes of s. 28 of the Act.
Decision A-0492.94
Full Text of Decision A-0492.94
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
employment |
definition |
Summary:
Left to take a course. The argument that she falls within para. 28(4)(f) on the basis that her internship constituted employment, albeit without remuneration, is not valid. Remuneration, actual or eventual, for the services rendered is necessary in order for a job to constitute employment (BERUBE).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
question not at issue |
|
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
length indefinite |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
new employment |
employment defined |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
new employment |
applicability |
|
Decision 23934
Full Text of Decision 23934
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
employment |
definition |
Summary:
Employed as building manager/superintendent. Upon rehiring the former manager, the employer wanted claimant to work in a subordinate position. Held that a new position was created which claimant was offered. His intention to reject that offer does not mean that he was leaving his employment.
Decision 23740
Full Text of Decision 23740
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
employment |
definition |
Summary:
Claimant left his janitorial part-time job which he obtained while he was collecting UI benefits and which paid less than what he was allowed as admissible earnings, that is this job had no impact on his benefit rate. Held that a 3-week disqualification was properly imposed.
Decision 19823
Full Text of Decision 19823
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
employment |
definition |
Summary:
According to insured, did not really quit job; worked only irregularly, on call; refers to MORISSETTE. Decision to the effect he voluntarily left an irregular position on call for another of same nature before having obtained assurances.
Decision A-0230.01
Full Text of Decision A-0230.01
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
employment |
last |
Summary:
At some point in his benefit period, the claimant began working part time in a job that he subsequently left so that he could begin a training course. Claimant disentitled for having left his employment when it was not the case that he had no reasonable alternative. Decision upheld by BOR and Umpire. Referring to decisions in Estabrooks (A-0787.96) and Locke (A-0799.95), the Court dismissed the application for judicial review on the ground that disentitlement was unavoidable under the current legislation.
Decision 50899
Full Text of Decision 50899
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
employment |
last |
Summary:
See indexed summary under FCA A-0230.01
Decision A-0787.96
Full Text of Decision A-0787.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
employment |
last |
Summary:
Lost f/t job in 09-92 and benefits paid. In 02-93, claimant took a p/t job but left it on 8-08-93 to move and attend university. Claimant disqualified. Decision upheld by the BOR and the Umpire. Claimant contends that S.59.1 refers only to employment lost during the qualifying period. Referring to its decision in Locke (A-0799.95), the FCA held that the S.59.1 refers to the "last employment lost" by a claimant "since the commencement of the qualifying period" and that a disqualification may strike during a claimant's benefit period. Claimant's application for judicial review dismissed by the FCA.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
applicability |
|
Decision A-0302.97
Full Text of Decision A-0302.97
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
employment |
last |
Summary:
Claimant lost his f/t job on 14-07-93 and started to receive benefits. He applied to take a course, which did not begin until 10-11-93. In mid-August 93, he took a p/t job and left it without just cause on 4-09-93. Claimant disqualified. Decision upheld by the BOR and the Umpire. Claimant contends that S.59.1 refers only to employment lost during the qualifying period. Referring to its decision in Locke (A-0799.95), the FCA held that the S.59.1 refers to the "last employment lost" by a claimant "since the commencement of the qualifying period" and that a disqualification may strike during a claimant's benefit period. Claimant's application for judicial review dismissed by the FCA.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
applicability |
|
Decision A-0299.97
Full Text of Decision A-0299.97
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
employment |
last |
Summary:
Claimant employed f/t by the University of Ottawa and holding a p/t job elsewhere at the same time. On 31-12-94, claimant lost his job, applied for EI and began to receive benefits. On 25-02-95, he left his p/t job without just cause. Claimant disqualified. Decision upheld by the BOR and the Umpire. Claimant contends that S.59.1 refers only to employment lost during the qualifying period. Referring to its decision in Locke (A-0799.95), the FCA held that the S.59.1 refers to the "last employment lost" by a claimant "since the commencement of the qualifying period" and that a disqualification may strike during a claimant's benefit period. Claimant's application for judicial review dismissed by the FCA.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
applicability |
|
Decision A-0799.95
Full Text of Decision A-0799.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
employment |
last |
Summary:
Held by FCA that ss. 59.1(1) of the Reg., when interpreted in conjunction with ss. 30.1(2) of the Act, means that the loss of any employment without just cause by a claimant, since the beginning of the qualifying period, will trigger the application of s. 28 disqualification regardless of whether it was a p/t job held concurrently with another or whether it occurred after the establishment of a benefit period based on a lay off from some other regular employment.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
applicability |
|
Decision A-0576.95
Full Text of Decision A-0576.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
employment |
last |
Summary:
Lost work on 23-8-93 due to misconduct. Obtained work elsewhere 30-8-93 and after 3 months was laid off. Upon filing claim, was disqualified by reason of previous employment. Held by Umpire that MCLAUGHLIN (A-244-94) applies. The FCA disagreed with the applicability of that decision since it was prior to the enactment of R. 59.1. When read with S.28 of the UI Act, it allows the Commission to impose a disqualification where a claimant loses a job for misconduct but subsequently becomes re-employed and claims benefits as a result of a lay off from the 2nd job. An accumulation of additional insurable weeks from the disqualifying event is necessary to requalify.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
make regulations |
|
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
applicability |
|
Decision 31607
Full Text of Decision 31607
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
employment |
last |
Summary:
The scheme of s.28 of the UIA and s.59.1 of the UIR is such that where a claimant has not accumulated sufficient insurable weeks in the new employment to qualify for UI, it is necessary to have regard to whether he left his previous employment with justcause. If not, UI benefits are denied.
Decision 31562
Full Text of Decision 31562
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
employment |
last |
Summary:
Indefinite disqualification previously imposed. Claimant subsequently worked 8 weeks while 16 weeks needed to requalify. Cannot avoid disqualification on an earlier employment: did not subsequently earn the required number of weeks to qualify for a claim based on those weeks alone.
Decision 29771
Full Text of Decision 29771
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
employment |
last |
Summary:
Left job in 9-93 to pursue education. Employed from 12-93 and laid off in 3-94. Upon filing claim, was disqualified for leaving previous job. Reg.59.1(1): clear that lost employment referred to in s.28 is last employment left vol. without just cause since the commencement of the Qualifying Period.
Decision 28797
Full Text of Decision 28797
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
employment |
last |
Summary:
Lost work on 23-8-93 due to misconduct. Obtained work elsewhere 30-8-93 and was laid off due to lack of work after more than 3 months. Upon filing claim, was disqualified by reason of previous employment. MCLAUGHLIN applies. Misconduct with respect to first job cannot be used to disqualify claimant.
Decision A-0141.94
Full Text of Decision A-0141.94
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
employment |
last |
Summary:
Benefit period established with respect to full-time work as accountant. Subsequently worked as taxi driver and left voluntarily. The Umpire did not err in effectively holding that the term "claim for benefit" as used in ss. 28(3) refers to an "initial claim" rather than a "continuing claim".
Decision 24074
Full Text of Decision 24074
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
employment |
last |
Summary:
Refer to: A-0141.94
Decision 27093
Full Text of Decision 27093
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
employment |
last |
Summary:
Argued that: not a voluntary separation if a person accepts employment while receiving benefits. Ss. 28(3) does not refer to the last employment before the initial claim, but to the last before the current claim. The claimant must fulfill all the conditions every two weeks.
Decision 26599
Full Text of Decision 26599
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
employment |
last |
Summary:
Argued that the 2 day employment after the initial claim should not be considered. Each claim filed every 2 weeks is a new claim (s. 34 of the Regulations). Last employment within the meaning of ss. 28(3) is the employment immediatel preceeding the weeks for which benefit is claimed.
Decision A-0244.94
Full Text of Decision A-0244.94
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
employment |
last |
Summary:
Where there is more than one claim, should a disqualification for misconduct on one particular claim (9-91) also apply to a subsequent claim, irrespective of the cause of such subsequent claim? There must be a causal connection between a disqualification and a claim in respect of which it applies.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
types of claims |
|
|
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
applicability |
|
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
intent and object |
|
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
rationale |
|
Decision 25400
Full Text of Decision 25400
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
employment |
last |
Summary:
It is argued that "employment" under 28(3) refers to a preceding employment used to qualify her to benefit. The "claim for benefit" referred to in 28(3) is the report card. The last employment prior to submitting the report card is the employment to consider.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
definition |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
new employment |
delay between two jobs |
|
Decision 24980
Full Text of Decision 24980
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
employment |
last |
Summary:
There has been conflicting jurisprudence on this issue of loss of secondary, part-time employment, when there has been no disqualification for loss of the qualifying employment. CUB 24074 is now in appeal. There is some indication in SMITH S. that such employment is nevertheless to be considered.
Decision 24697
Full Text of Decision 24697
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
employment |
last |
Summary:
Left one employment voluntarily and laid off from 2nd employment a week later. Claim filed mid-May 93. The Board held that first employment to be ignored under ss. 28(3). Error in law. First employment to be taken into account under s. 59.1 for the purpose of disqualification.
Decision 24276
Full Text of Decision 24276
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
employment |
last |
Summary:
Refer to: A-0244.94
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
types of claims |
|
|
| misconduct |
loss of employment |
definition |
|
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
applicability |
|
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
intent and object |
|
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
rationale |
|
Decision 21951
Full Text of Decision 21951
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
employment |
last |
Summary:
The loss of employment contemplated in ss. 28(1) is that which gives rise to a claim for UI. It refers to the time period prior to the claim for UI. Once claimant is granted UI, he cannot lose his employment a second time for misconduct or any other cause.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
applicability |
|
|
| misconduct |
loss of employment |
definition |
|
Decision 17046
Full Text of Decision 17046
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
employment |
last |
Summary:
While on UI, claimant accepted work which he then left. He argues that 41(3) and reg. 59(2) do not apply because it was not employment immediately preceding his claim for UI. This was dealt with in CUB 11939 and I accept the reasoning therein.
Decision 11939
Full Text of Decision 11939
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
employment |
last |
Summary:
Claim made in 1-84. He subsequently found work which he left in 4-84. He argues that under ss.41(3) 'employment' refers to that immediately preceding his claim of 1-84. I do not accept this. A claim is made every week and the latest employment is to be considered under ss.41(3)
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
working conditions |
dangerous |
|
Decision 11450
Full Text of Decision 11450
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
employment |
last |
Summary:
Dismissed by reason of misconduct on 22-5. Hired by another contractor on same site to commence 29-5 but car accident in the meantime. Ss.28(3) applied by Board to disregard prior employment. Was not employed by second employer. The Board ignored reg._59(2). [p._7-8]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
rationale |
|
|
| misconduct |
leave of absence denied |
|
|
Decision 26627
Full Text of Decision 26627
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
employment |
non insurable |
Summary:
The Board held that the reduction of working hours made the employment non insurable and rescinded the disqualification. Error in law. In reading ss. 28(4) it is quite clear that the insurability factor is not just cause for voluntary separation. Exempt from disqualification for another reason.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
significant change in salary |
|
Decision 26039
Full Text of Decision 26039
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
employment |
non insurable |
Summary:
Left employment of 9 hours per week at a rate of $54. CUBs 11416 and 4576 examined. It is clear that s. 28(3) refers to the last employment held by the claimant, whether it be considered as "insurable" or not.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
personal reasons |
courses of study |
|
Decision 22056
Full Text of Decision 22056
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
employment |
non insurable |
Summary:
I am far from convinced that a claimant can be disqualified for leaving an employment which by definition is not insurable employment. However, in light of my findings on the other issue it is not necessary for me to deal with this question at the present time.
Decision 11416
Full Text of Decision 11416
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
employment |
non insurable |
Summary:
Employed 10 hours a week at $50. Disqualified 2 weeks. No indication in ss.28(3) and reg. 59 that employment means insurable employment. CUB 4576 referred to. Clearly, s.28 applies to employment whether it be insurable or not.
Decision 37553
Full Text of Decision 37553
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
end of contract |
|
Summary:
Having quit his job three weeks before expiration of his contract, the claimant was disqualified. While recognizing that claimant had voluntarily quit his job without just cause, the Umpire found that par. 28.3(1) (a) [ now 33(1) (a) ] which calls for a disentitlemnt rather than disqualification was applicable.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
employment about to terminate |
|
Decision 25799A
Full Text of Decision 25799A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
end of contract |
|
Summary:
Question of credibility as to whether the claimant or the employer refused to renew the contract. Held that the Board's decision was based on non relevant facts. The claimant did not voluntarily leave his employment. His contract was for a determined period to end on 20-8-93.
Decision A-0049.94
Full Text of Decision A-0049.94
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
end of contract |
|
Summary:
At the end of a 3-month term in a Miami hospital, claimant did not want to renew her contract. Held by the Umpire that failure to renew her contract did not amount to quitting. On the facts of this case, we have not been persuaded that the Umpire made any error that warrants our intervention.
In CUB 8538 I held that failure to re-enlist in the Armed Forces after 5 years was not leaving without just cause. There is nothing in the legislation to make any distinction between this and renewal of an expired contract of civilian nature, as per Umpire. FC not persuaded that it should intervene.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
armed forces |
|
Decision 24937
Full Text of Decision 24937
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
end of contract |
|
Summary:
Employed in golf teaching. At end of season, the employer offered him a year-round job, but the 50 hours were to be reduced to 30 to 35 a week with a corresponding loss of income. This he rejected. It is quite clear that if one is offered a lesser job, one cannot quit without having something else.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
length |
powers |
Decision 23828
Full Text of Decision 23828
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
end of contract |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0049.94
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
guidelines from the Commission |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
armed forces |
|
Decision 10719
Full Text of Decision 10719
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
government programs |
|
Summary:
Ontario Career in Action Program. Seamstress at $100 a week. Not getting enough experience and training. Some concerns about waste of funds. Purpose of program touched on. Matters of judgment cannot apply rigorously after event. Disqualification reducedto 2 weeks.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
personal reasons |
ethical considerations |
|
Decision A0071.12
Full Text of Decision A0071.12
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
impending layoff |
|
Summary:
The claimant’s departure from his employment was precipitated by complaints received by his employer from customers advising that the applicant had not given them the appropriate credits for returned bread. The employer’s policy provided that different types of bread were subject to different return credit rates. The claimant was applying one rate, the lowest credit rate. As a result, a payment of over $9000 was not appropriately reimbursed to the customers and the claimant’s commissions were overstated. The customers informed the employer that the claimant would no longer be permitted on the customers’ premises. The claimant was offered a similar position on a different route by his employer. He declined the offer and left his employment. The FCA dismissed the application on the ground that monetary relief is not available on the application for judicial review in front oh the FCA.
Decision 46155
Full Text of Decision 46155
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
impending layoff |
|
Summary:
Claimant quit his job after being sentenced to a federal penitentiary and did not want to advise his employer of the situation because he preferred not to be fired. Claimant indicated that he had no reasonable alternative but to leave his employment and the BOR allowed his appeal ruling that he did not leave his job voluntarily. Referring to the FCA decision in Smith (A-0875.96), the Commission submits that although the claimant was incarcerated for an offence committed prior to his employment, his incarceration prevented him from reporting to work which is a breach of an express duty in the employment contract. The decision of the BOR was set aside by the Umpire.
Decision 27411
Full Text of Decision 27411
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
impending layoff |
|
Summary:
Claimant received notice that her employment would terminate in 2 weeks. She decided to leave immediately. Held by the Board that she had no job to leave as it was terminated. Error in law. The layoff notice did not immediately terminate her employment. She was still employed at the date she quit.
Decision 24648
Full Text of Decision 24648
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
impending layoff |
|
Summary:
Claimant was given 2 months' notice that his job would terminate 31-8-92. He chose to leave on 31-7-92. He said he was told he could leave at any time. The fact that he was free to leave at any time does not legally constitute just cause. He could have worked one more month and should have done so.
Decision 22035
Full Text of Decision 22035
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
impending layoff |
|
Summary:
Claimant left when she found out that without her knowledge her employer was trying to replace her by having the job posted at the Employment Centre. This does not mean that she was constructively dismissed. She should have looked for another job before quitting.
Decision 21881
Full Text of Decision 21881
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
impending layoff |
|
Summary:
Claimant was given 2 weeks' notice: work unacceptable. She chose not to work for those 2 weeks. Based on this, the Board removed the 7-week disqualification. If a layoff is imminent, does that constitute just cause? I cannot find that the Board made a perverse decision.
Decision 20772
Full Text of Decision 20772
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
impending layoff |
|
Summary:
The fact that he believed he was about to be laid off in any event certainly does not constitute just cause. Furthermore, it appears he was merely acting on the assumption he was about to be laid off since the employer maintains that his job would have lasted for another 6 weeks.
Decision 15200
Full Text of Decision 15200
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
impending layoff |
|
Summary:
Informed that he would be laid off in 3 days and as he found this notice to be too short, he notified the employer, as a protest that he would not be in work the next day. He then changed his mind, but someone else replaced him.
Decision 11645
Full Text of Decision 11645
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
impending layoff |
|
Summary:
Dissatisfaction with the amount of work available and the prospects of an impending layoff are not sufficient, according to the decided cases, to constitute just cause, particularly where claimant has no alternative employment arranged.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
personal reasons |
moving |
|
Decision A0042.13
Full Text of Decision A0042.13
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
jail sentence |
|
Summary:
The claimant was incarcerated from March 6 to April 16, 2012 as a result of a complaint filed by his spouse that he had uttered death threats against her. On March 8, 2012, he received a letter from his employer informing him that his absence was unauthorized ans asking him to appear at work and justify his absence. While still incarcerated, the claimant contacted his manager to explain that he had no choice but to resign, given that he did not know when he would be released. On April 20, 2012, he filed a claim for benefits. The Commission informed the claimant that it could not pay him benefits because he had voluntarily left his employment without just cause. By allowing the application for judicial review, the FCA explained that the concept of misconduct does not require proof of penal liability. The FCA repeated the test for misconduct and found that the evidence showed that the claimant’s behaviour had led to his incarceration and to the loss of his employment. The FCA indicated that the BOR had not taken into account this evidence and that the Umpire should have intervened.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
unauthorized leave of absence |
|
Decision 57350C
Full Text of Decision 57350C
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
jail sentence |
|
Summary:
The Umpire concluded that not reporting for work and failing to communicate with his employer to explain why he had not done so, constitutes voluntarily quitting without just cause, and in any event, "the foolish mistakes that caused him to find himself in custody", to use the claimant's words, would constitute misconduct supporting the employer's decision not to take him back. The issue was not whether he would be found guilty or not, it was whether the claimant had lost his employment either as a result of quitting without just cause or being dismissed due to his misconduct. It was the claimant's conduct that led to his situation of being arrested.
Decision A-0338.03
Full Text of Decision A-0338.03
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
jail sentence |
|
Summary:
An employee who cannot work because of his imprisonment loses his employment by reason of his own misconduct or in cases where the employer has not taken any steps to fire the person, it amounts to a voluntary leaving.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
absences from work |
|
|
Decision 36997
Full Text of Decision 36997
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
jail sentence |
|
Summary:
Bor erred in law, basing it's decision on acceptance of the claimant's failure to contact his employer. No determination of whether claimant "voluntarily" left his
job. Employer took reasonable steps to assess claimant's ability to return to work. Commission's decision of voluntarily leaving without just cause was appropriate.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
definition |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
legislation |
questions to examine |
|
Decision 23199
Full Text of Decision 23199
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
jail sentence |
|
Summary:
The Board upheld the disqualification because claimant was the author of his own misfortune in that he was convicted and incarcerated for an offence. This placed him in the position of being unable to continue his employment and is not considered just cause. I have difficulty with this finding.
I have difficulty with the finding that he left without just cause. Indeed, I have difficulty with the finding that he voluntarily left at all. He was physically unable to go as a result of restraints not within his control. His separation can only be considered voluntary in the most indirect way.
Decision 64307
Full Text of Decision 64307
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
leave of absence granted |
|
Summary:
The claimant had voluntarily taken an authorized period of leave for personal reasons and to move. The judge stated that, although the reasons for taking the leave were reasonable, they could not be considered just cause under the meaning of the Act and concluded that the claimant was not entitled to benefits until one of the conditions under paragraph 32(2) of the Act was met.
Decision A-0694.96
Full Text of Decision A-0694.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
leave of absence granted |
|
Summary:
Claimant on leave authorized by his employer in order to complete two university courses. Considered ineligible for the entire leave period. Disentitlement upheld by the BOR but reduced on the basis of evidence provided by the claimant at the hearing. Commission appealed to the Umpire because the claimant had not resumed the former employment. The Umpire determined that his leaving was justified and cancelled the disentitlement. The FCA reinstated the disentitlement and said it was wrong for the Umpire to find that the claimant had just cause in leaving his employment to pursue his studies. **NOTE: Ambiguity identified by the FCA in relation to the expression "resumes employment" in paragraph 28.2(2)(a); corrected in the new Employment Insurance Act (paragraph 32(2)(a) [formerly 28.2(2)(a)].
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
personal reasons |
courses of study |
|
Decision 28183
Full Text of Decision 28183
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
leave of absence granted |
|
Summary:
Held that the Board erred in deciding that the claimant was justified in asking his employer a leave of absence without pay to leave the Beauce region and move in Chambly with her boyfriend of 6 years, with whom she had never cohabitated.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
to accompany spouse |
|
Decision 25586
Full Text of Decision 25586
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
leave of absence granted |
|
Summary:
Part-time worker collecting UI. Requested and was granted some 2 weeks' unpaid leave. Did not request UI for these 2 weeks and then went back to her part-time work. It is not only incredible but unconscionable that the Commission and the Board should have treated this action as being a quitting.
Decision 21688
Full Text of Decision 21688
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
leave of absence granted |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-1449.92
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
discretionary powers |
|
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
disqualification |
|
Decision A-1449.92
Full Text of Decision A-1449.92
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
leave of absence granted |
|
Summary:
Took leave of absence in order to take a course for 7 months. Changed her mind a few weeks later. She argues that she did not leave her employment because she only took leave of absence. The reason she was not working was that she had voluntarily taken leave of absence.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
disqualification |
|
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
discretionary powers |
|
Decision 19870
Full Text of Decision 19870
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
leave of absence granted |
|
Summary:
Part-time worker who took an unpaid leave of absence to look for full-time work in another area. Being unsuccessful she returned to her job some 7 weeks later. Held that she left without just cause. Disqualification reduced to 1 week because of strong extenuating circumstances.
Decision 17867
Full Text of Decision 17867
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
leave of absence granted |
|
Summary:
Government worker who, upon being nominated as a candidate for the forthcoming Federal election, was required to take leave of absence. This amounts to a voluntary separation. In view of the high-minded purpose of the reason for the leave, disqualification reduced to 2 weeks.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
personal reasons |
election campaign |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
tantamount to leaving |
|
Decision 12908
Full Text of Decision 12908
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
leave of absence granted |
|
Summary:
3 months unpaid leave. She voluntarily left to go back to school. Undeniably a commendable reason, but not just cause. Personal choice. 5 week disqualification in issue.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification and disentitlement |
|
|
Decision 11478
Full Text of Decision 11478
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
leave of absence granted |
|
Summary:
Case turns on facts. Teacher who took leave without pay: wanted to find something else because her duties had changed. 6 week disqualification upheld.
Decision 22089
Full Text of Decision 22089
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
maternity leave |
|
Summary:
According to the insured, she refused a job but did not quit, as she was not holding down a job at that time. I cannot agree with that reasoning. She was not dismissed. She took maternity leave and had the right to return to her job. She refused and thus quit voluntarily.
Decision 21616
Full Text of Decision 21616
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
maternity leave |
|
Summary:
Hospital worker who arranged for a 6-month leave of absence from 7-90 to 1-91. Applied for regular UI in 11-90. Hospital could not grant her request to return in 11-90 as it had hired someone for 6 months. Held that this amounted to voluntary leaving in 7-90 rather than in 11-90.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
event giving rise to |
|
Decision 20387
Full Text of Decision 20387
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
maternity leave |
|
Summary:
The CEIC's position is that by obtaining an extended leave of absence early in 4-90, a leave going long beyond the 15-week maternity period, she had voluntarily left her job. Policy, however, dictated that this be not imposed concurrently with maternitybenefits. No error of law.
Decision 15818
Full Text of Decision 15818
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
maternity leave |
|
Summary:
Teacher on a 1-year leave of absence due to the possibility of severe hypertension developing in the course of pregnancy. The law does exact reasonable foresight to avoid dangers and pitfalls which can be reasonably anticipated.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
natural justice |
free of bias |
|
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
length |
|
Decision 15718
Full Text of Decision 15718
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
maternity leave |
|
Summary:
Teacher on maternity leave from 25-9 paid maternity benefits until 9-1 and then disqualified 2 weeks. By agreeing with her employer that she would only return to work 26-1, i.e. 2 weeks after maternity leave had expired, claimant voluntarily left her employment under 41(1).
Decision 15656
Full Text of Decision 15656
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
maternity leave |
|
Summary:
Maternity leave. Paid 15 weeks of benefits. Failed to return to work. 6-week disqualification upheld.
Decision 15152
Full Text of Decision 15152
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
maternity leave |
|
Summary:
Teacher left 1-5. Gave birth 19-5. Acted in good faith by telling employer she might not be well enough in September. Medical evidence. She may have made error in judgment and employer reorganized classes. Too late in June to reapply. Disqualification reduced to 1 week.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| teaching |
leave commencing prior to summer months |
|
|
| availability for work |
job search |
effective date |
|
Decision 14644
Full Text of Decision 14644
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
maternity leave |
|
Summary:
Claimant did not return to her job after the leave because no babysitter. Disqualified 6 weeks and found not available. Refusal to return until arrangements made not just cause but did not act without reason: excessive concern for children. Disqualification reduced to 2 weeks.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
incompatible situations |
family obligations |
|
Decision 12787
Full Text of Decision 12787
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
maternity leave |
|
Summary:
Did not return to work on expiry of maternity leave and maternity benefit. Disentitlement upheld. 13 week rule not in issue.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
authority to reexamine |
|
Decision 11564
Full Text of Decision 11564
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
maternity leave |
|
Summary:
Claims regular benefits after collecting 15 weeks' maternity. Had requested and been granted an additional 6-week leave by employer. If claimant is unemployed, she would be subject to disqualification under s.30. The maximum would be appropriate.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
incompatible situations |
leave requested |
|
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
decision maintained |
|
Decision 11565
Full Text of Decision 11565
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
maternity leave |
|
Summary:
Resigned rather than request leave of absence. Employer said that claimant was under a lot of pressure and without understanding the effect on her, they influenced her to make a decision. Disqualified after exhausting maternity benefits but reduced to 4weeks.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
legislation |
rationale |
|
Decision 11287
Full Text of Decision 11287
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
maternity leave |
|
Summary:
Maternity leave commenced 10-9. When her leave expired, claimant left her employment. Disqualification effective 29-1 upheld. 13-week rule not raised.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
health reasons |
|
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
personal reasons |
babysitting problems |
|
Decision 1554080
Full Text of Decision 1554080
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
maternity leave |
|
Summary:
Manitoba teacher who went on maternity leave in March. While the contract was not brought to an end when she left her work, she having sought only a leave of absence, there was a separation from employment.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
layoff or separation |
definition |
|
| teaching |
earnings |
summer months |
|
Decision A-0267.77
Full Text of Decision A-0267.77
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
maternity leave |
|
Summary:
Manitoba teacher who went on maternity leave in March. While the contract was not brought to an end when she left her work, she having sought only a leave of absence, there was a separation from employment. Refer to summary indexed under Supreme Court decision 1554080.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
layoff or separation |
definition |
|
| teaching |
earnings |
summer months |
|
Decision 72079
Full Text of Decision 72079
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
mutual decision |
|
Summary:
The claimant was employed at a hospital. In the past, she had a problem with alcohol and illegal drug use relapses and was trying to find a solution to her problem. When her employer asked her to take screening tests, she refused. Rather than dismissing her, the employer reached an agreement with the union for her to quit. The Commission refused her the benefits because she left voluntarily without just cause. The Board's decision is rescinded and the Commission's decision is confirmed.
Decision 70104
Full Text of Decision 70104
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
mutual decision |
|
Summary:
The claimant argues that he left his employment based upon the option of a mutual separation. That form of separation did not demand that the claimant resign. That was the option he chose. It was a personal decision. He had the choice to stay or to leave and he chose to leave after weighing his options.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
working conditions |
dangerous |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
undue pressure to quit |
|
Decision 41800
Full Text of Decision 41800
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
mutual decision |
|
Summary:
Claimant unwilling to follow the training course offered by the firm and announced his intention to leave (with a 2-week notice) at a meeting with his supervisor in June or July. The firm offered him to stay until he found a job or until his services were no longer required (end of August). Having taken the initiative to leave, claimant considered to have left his job voluntarily without just cause. Decision upheld by the Umpire who found that claimant knew that his job was only going to last until August, he had not taken steps to have done a regular job search and he did not have any discussions with his superiors about extending his time.
Decision 23259
Full Text of Decision 23259
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
mutual decision |
|
Summary:
A personality conflict between an employer and employee can be resolved by a mutual decision to terminate the employment relationship pursuant to which the employer gives an employee a reasonable period of notice and thereby a period of time within which to seek alternate employment.
Termination here was a mutual decision wherein each recognized that they could not continue working together. It was not leaving without just cause. Nor could I characterize it as a constructive dismissal. It was simply a mutual albeit acrimonious decision to terminate the relationship immediately.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
tantamount to dismissal |
|
Decision 14066
Full Text of Decision 14066
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
mutual decision |
|
Summary:
If an employee and an employer mutually agree that the employee will no longer remain an employee, I am satisfied that this indicates that the employee voluntarily left his employment.
Decision 20928
Full Text of Decision 20928
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
new owners |
|
Summary:
Business sold but claimant could have remained with the new owner. The claimant's decision not to accept the new owners offer of employment is not the issue before me nor was it the issue before the Board. As his employment was terminated, he did not voluntarily leave it.
Decision A-0517.94
Full Text of Decision A-0517.94
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
reduction in hours |
|
Summary:
The change in employment status from full-time to part-time (37 to 27 hours), i.e. hours of work reduced by almost 30% with reduced number not guaranteed, constituted a significant modification of terms and conditions respecting wages or salary within 28(4)(g). Concurred in by the FC.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
significant change in salary |
|
Decision 27994
Full Text of Decision 27994
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
reduction in hours |
|
Summary:
On the same day the claimant received a layoff notice which was to take effect two weeks later, the employer offered him to work 31 hours per week instead of 39. Held that this did not constitute voluntary leaving, but that the employer acted unilaterally in laying off his employee.
Decision 17461
Full Text of Decision 17461
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
reduction in hours |
|
Summary:
Leaves her full-time job because she is taking courses but continues to work 8 hours per week at the same location. 6-week exclusion justified.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
personal reasons |
ethical considerations |
|
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
meaning |
Decision A-0713.93
Full Text of Decision A-0713.93
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
refusal to live at employer's |
|
Summary:
Immigrant whose permit required her to work as a "live-in" domestic. Upon obtaining an "open work" permit 10 months later, she wished to move out. Her employer was not prepared to accept this and many months later obtained a replacement. Held that this does not amount to voluntarily leaving work.
Decision 23490
Full Text of Decision 23490
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
refusal to live at employer's |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0713.93
Decision A-0358.83
Full Text of Decision A-0358.83
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
rule of 13 weeks |
|
Summary:
Work stoppage due to a labour dispute 19-6. Not taken back in November because of misconduct. Claim filed in November. Immediate action must be taken to eliminate Reg. 59(1) from the issue. [reasoning difficult to understand]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dismissal upon settlement of labour dispute |
|
|
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
definition |
|
Decision 32370
Full Text of Decision 32370
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
sharing employment |
|
Summary:
Beneficiary does not agree with the employer's work-sharing policy and leaves. His conduct is deemed unreasonable; he could have accepted the new schedule and taken advantage of the free time it afforded him to look for other full-time work before resigning.
Decision 23492
Full Text of Decision 23492
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
sharing employment |
|
Summary:
Security guard allowed by employer to share his work with a fellow employee. Ceased work after completing an agreed 6-month term. He then requested his regular job. Resignation required in order to be rehired as regular 6 months later. This is voluntarily leaving without just cause.
Decision 18526A
Full Text of Decision 18526A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
sharing employment |
|
Summary:
Teacher who agreed in 1-86 to enter a work-sharing agreement the following year. His employment accordingly ended in 1-87 when a novice teacher assumed his duties for the balance of the year. Disqualification of 1 week: resulting social benefits and others treated differently.
Decision A-0721.90
Full Text of Decision A-0721.90
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
sharing employment |
|
Summary:
Teacher who agreed in 1-86 to enter a work-sharing agreement the next year, and in accord with that agreement his employment ended in 1-87 when a novice teacher assumed his responsibilities for the balance of the school year. Held that he left without just cause. TANGUAY applies.
Decision 18526
Full Text of Decision 18526
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
sharing employment |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0721.90
Decision 11109
Full Text of Decision 11109
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
sharing employment |
|
Summary:
Having entered into a job-sharing agreement in 84, albeit voluntarily, position no longer available 1-2-85 and was laid off. It cannot strictly be held as voluntary in 2-85. Social benefits of such plan are obvious. In any event, case conceded by Commission.
Decision A-0445.78
Full Text of Decision A-0445.78
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
sharing employment |
|
Summary:
Collective agreement contains a clause whereby claimant is laid off after working a number of weeks under what appears to be a union work sharing program. The Commission alleges this amounts to voluntary leaving for union members. Allegation dismissed.
Decision 63517
Full Text of Decision 63517
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
sick leave |
|
Summary:
The claimant was absent from work for several days and refused to provide a medical certificate. This amounted to leaving his employment without just cause.
Decision 12745
Full Text of Decision 12745
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
sick leave |
|
Summary:
Received sickness benefits due to back injury. Disqualified 6 weeks upon recovery one month later. Argues employer would have been forced to hire someone else in any event. While this may be accurate, he acted precipitously. Future course of events not known with certainty.
Decision 10663
Full Text of Decision 10663
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
sick leave |
|
Summary:
Claimant left due to illness and pressure and was paid UI sickness benefit for 6 weeks. Then disqualified for voluntary leaving on the basis that if she had asked for leave of absence it would have been granted.
Decision A-1082.84
Full Text of Decision A-1082.84
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
strike anticipated |
|
Summary:
It was clear that the loss of employment was final, as referred to in section 28; the fact that he himself provoked it resulted in a 6-week disqualification. Board of Referees did not err in saying that the claimant was not justified in leaving because of an impending strike.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dismissal upon settlement of labour dispute |
|
|
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
definition |
|
| labour dispute |
rationale |
|
|
Decision 64388
Full Text of Decision 64388
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
strike going on |
|
Summary:
While on strike, the claimant had left his region to go to school, hoping to complete the training before the end of the strike. The claimant had not informed his employer nor his union that he was leaving or how he could be reached. He did nothing to keep abreast of the progress made in settling the strike. The judge stated that the claimant had an obligation to keep informed on the progress of the strike, and found that the claimant himself had incurred the risk of losing his job and was unable to demonstrate that he had established just cause for his voluntary leaving.
Decision 22324
Full Text of Decision 22324
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
strike going on |
|
Summary:
Sick until 10-4-90. Scheduled to return to work 11-4-90. Existing labour dispute. He resigned 2-5-90 due to health reasons. Disentitled from 15-4 to 1-5 and then disqualified 3 weeks for leaving employment. Disqualification upheld and reduced to 1 week.
Decision 14799
Full Text of Decision 14799
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
strike going on |
|
Summary:
Union member whose temporary job was due to last until 25-4. Strike called 4-4 until 24-9. Resigned 22-5 from employment and union. Disqualified 2 weeks. Not convinced that he left. He was not employed. There was a loss of employment under s.31 but he cannot be said to have left.
Decision A0319.14
Full Text of Decision A0319.14
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
tantamount to dismissal |
|
Summary:
The claimant had been dismissed because he had illegally connected the cable to a tenant’s apartment on two occasions. The Commission excluded the claimant from receiving benefits because he lost his employment by reason of his misconduct. In the appeal, the BOR upheld the Commission’s decision. The claimant then requested another hearing before the BOR pursuant to section 120 of the EI Act so that it could take into consideration an agreement he had made with his employer. In the agreement, the employer substituted the dismissal with a suspension without pay for three weeks and the applicant waived his reinstatement in the workplace following the suspension. In light of this new evidence, the BOR determined that the applicant qualified for benefits. The appeal of that decision by the Commission was allowed by the SST which ruled that the applicant was no longer employed because of his misconduct. The FCA concluded that the agreement did not result in changing the sanction and therefore did not allow the BOR to amend its original decision. The claimant having waived the reinstatement clause of the agreement, whatever it is, whether he has lost his employment due to his misconduct or left his employment voluntarily without just cause, he should be excluded from benefits. The application for judicial review was dismissed.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
suspension * |
|
|
Decision 70395
Full Text of Decision 70395
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
tantamount to dismissal |
|
Summary:
Misconduct and voluntary leaving are two distinct notions rationally linked together because they both refer to situations where loss of employment results from a deliberate action of the employee. Tantamount to dismissal. The claimant was obligated to renew his security license as directed by the Ministry in order to continue working. The claimant did not renew his license. He knew it was his responsibility to renew his license or he would be dismissed. The claimant chose to notify the employer that he quit. If the employer had actually dismissed him, a finding of misconduct would have resulted. Since the legal issue is a disqualification under subsection 30(1) of the Act, the finding of the Board or the Umpire can be based on any of the two grounds for disqualification as long as it supported by the evidence.
Decision A-0078.04
Full Text of Decision A-0078.04
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
tantamount to dismissal |
|
Summary:
The Court stated that it does not matter whether it was the employee or the employer who severed the employment relationship when misconduct is the cause of the termination.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
driving permit |
|
|
Decision 45268
Full Text of Decision 45268
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
tantamount to dismissal |
|
Summary:
The claimant, a truck driver, was convicted of driving while his ability was impaired. On 31-3-98, he was advised that his driver's licence was suspended for one year. Instead of firing him, the employer decided to give the claimant a leave of absence. Claimant was denied benefits because he voluntarily took leave from his job without just cause. Claimant argued that he could no longer do his work and therefore "had no reasonable alternative to leaving or taking leave.." Held by Umpire that the lack of reasonable alternative to leaving arose out of claimant's own actions. Reference made to FCA decision in Brissette (A-1342.92).
Decision A-0875.96
Full Text of Decision A-0875.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
tantamount to dismissal |
|
Summary:
Claimant started working as a truck driver in 02-94. In 06-94, claimant advised the employer that he could not carry on working as a driver: licence suspended for an offence committed in 07-93 i.e. seven months before he started to work. In a majority decision, the FCA held that claimant had lost his job without just cause. **The umpire referred to the misconduct of the applicant. This is not a case where the applicant lost his employment by reason of misconduct, since he voluntarily left his employment. But it was not an error on the part of the umpire to assert that where a term of employment is the maintenance of a driver's Class A licence, the loss of that licence by the actions of the applicant amounted to loosing his employment by reason of his misconduct. This statement is not contradictory to the decision of this Court in Nolet (A-517-91) cited in Brissette (A-1342-92).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
driving permit |
|
|
| misconduct |
misconduct prior to employment |
|
|
| misconduct |
definition |
|
|
| misconduct |
criminal acts |
|
|
| misconduct |
elsewhere than at work |
|
|
| misconduct |
questions to examine |
|
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
no reasonable alternative |
|
Decision 35627
Full Text of Decision 35627
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
tantamount to dismissal |
|
Summary:
In this case, the theft was the risk that the claimant assumed when he committed theft while in the employer's service. The fact that he was given the choice of resigning or be fired does not alter the fact that it was the actions of the claimant and the claimant alone that caused his termination.
Decision 33370
Full Text of Decision 33370
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
tantamount to dismissal |
|
Summary:
The employer was offering the claimant a demotion in responsibility and reporting structure. Referring to CUB 18009 dealing with any major change in the employment relationship, the Umpire found that claimant was constructively dismissed and had just cause for leaving.
Decision 26245
Full Text of Decision 26245
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
tantamount to dismissal |
|
Summary:
Held that the law of constructive dismissal applies. Claimant faced a new manager behaving irrationally and there was a replacement employee waiting to be employed. The inference was that the new manager was inflicting a deliberate provocation upon claimant in the hope that she would rush out.
Decision 24138
Full Text of Decision 24138
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
tantamount to dismissal |
|
Summary:
The employee was told that he had "the option of resigning or being dismissed. Under the circumstances, although he may have signed a letter of resignation which had been dictated by the employer, such letter amounts to a dismissal, a loss of employment contemplated under section 28.
Decision 23259
Full Text of Decision 23259
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
tantamount to dismissal |
|
Summary:
It is not clear why the Board characterized the events as a constructive dismissal. A personality conflict, a flaring of tempers does not automatically lead to such a conclusion. These are equally consistent with an employee leaving employment (with or without just cause).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
mutual decision |
|
Decision 22778
Full Text of Decision 22778
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
tantamount to dismissal |
|
Summary:
In the circumstances of this case, with a history of differences between him and his supervisor, with reductions in wages and hours of work, and finally with the threat, made in front of fellow employees, that if he made another mistake he would be fired, in my view he was constructively dismissed.
Decision 22352
Full Text of Decision 22352
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
tantamount to dismissal |
|
Summary:
A claimant who is forced to resign or face dismissal does not voluntarily leave his or her job and the Commission is entitled to consider the issue of misconduct.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dereliction of duty |
|
|
Decision 17766B
Full Text of Decision 17766B
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
tantamount to dismissal |
|
Summary:
The Board did not believe that a redefined contract, with same approximate remuneration, is constructive dismissal. This is clearly wrong in law unless one accepts that an employer can unilaterally change a contract which is proving more profitable to employee than anticipated.
Decision 19432
Full Text of Decision 19432
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
tantamount to dismissal |
|
Summary:
A constructive dismissal occurs when the employer unilaterally, that is without the agreement of the employee, imposes changes upon the terms of the employment contract which are of a fundamental nature. This always amounts to just cause for leaving.
Purchasing manager with 11 years of seniority who disagreed with the appraisal, declined to sign the form and, upon being imposed a probationary period of 9 months, left on the advice of his lawyer. This amounted to a constructive dismissal and to just cause for leaving.
Decision 19215
Full Text of Decision 19215
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
tantamount to dismissal |
|
Summary:
Claimant had a year of conflict with employer over radio programs broadcasted to the plant. A compromise solution lasted for 18 months. One day the employer abruptly put an end to it with claimant humiliated in front of others. This is a constructive dismissal or else just cause.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
working conditions |
change |
|
Decision 18009
Full Text of Decision 18009
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
tantamount to dismissal |
|
Summary:
It is important not to equate "just cause" and "constructive dismissal" since "just cause" is broader than the strict grounds of the latter. But at the very least, cases where the employer's actions can be shown to amount to constructive dismissal will always provide just cause.
Where the employer presents the employee with fundamentally different and new terms of employment and conveys to the employee that he must accept them or else face dismissal, the employee is fully entitled to treat this action as a constructive dismissal and leave.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
working conditions |
change |
|
Decision 17185
Full Text of Decision 17185
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
tantamount to dismissal |
|
Summary:
Claimant, a manager, is put on probation after 26 years' service. Company set out objectives which, according to him, are impossible to meet. He feels the real reason may be to close the branch. More likely that he left as a result of constructive dismissal.
Decision 15753
Full Text of Decision 15753
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
tantamount to dismissal |
|
Summary:
Claimant alleges job phased out and he was constructively dismissed. Refuses to discuss his case on advice of lawyer pending legal suit. Length of 6-week disqualification to be reexamined. Whether he sought remedial action before leaving is a most important factor.
Decision 15384
Full Text of Decision 15384
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
tantamount to dismissal |
|
Summary:
Foreman of subcontractor threatened claimant. Upon being informed, employer offered claimant a job to another site with less hours. Error in law not to consider constructive dismissal as indicated by banishment with less hours although he appeared not to have been in the wrong.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of facts |
|
Decision 14833
Full Text of Decision 14833
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
tantamount to dismissal |
|
Summary:
No obligation on employee to attempt to persuade employer who is terminating employment relationship to extend it. If employer sets up a situation where employee has no choice but to quit, that is treated in law as constructive dismissal. Crucial fact is not who took initiative.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
observations from the Commission |
|
|
| board of referees |
right to be heard |
improper hearing |
|
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
credibility |
|
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
comments on conduct of hearing |
|
Decision 12518
Full Text of Decision 12518
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
tantamount to dismissal |
|
Summary:
He requested to be laid off as his authority as an Executive was questioned. Nevertheless a motion by the Board of Directors clearly indicates he was terminated. He did not leave voluntarily.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
relations at work |
unhappy atmosphere |
|
Decision 11587
Full Text of Decision 11587
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
tantamount to dismissal |
|
Summary:
Claimant was asked to resign. When he refused he was told that if he did not resign he would be released and to think about it. It can hardly be found that claimant voluntarily left as alleged.
Decision A-0562.04
Full Text of Decision A-0562.04
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
tantamount to leaving |
|
Summary:
The FCA ruled that the Umpire and the BOR had erred by focusing the issue on whether the employer or the claimant had taken the initiative in breaching the employment contract. An employee who, like the claimant, informs her employer that she is less available than before because of her studies is inviting the employer to terminate the employment contract. It is therefore a case of voluntary separation, since the dismissal is merely the logical outcome of the claimant's deliberate act of pursuing studies under conditions that prevent her from being available.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
personal reasons |
courses of study |
|
Decision 64050
Full Text of Decision 64050
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
tantamount to leaving |
|
Summary:
If the claimant felt he was unfairly suspended, he should have pursued a remedy under the appropriate labour legislation. Refusing to resume an employment constitutes voluntary leaving under the Employment Insurance Act.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
relations at work |
scolding |
|
Decision 50079
Full Text of Decision 50079
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
tantamount to leaving |
|
Summary:
Claimant was on a recall list and refused to accept a recall on several occasions. Claimant was willing to return to work only if a letter of reprimand was removed from his file. Claimant's refusal to resume his employment constituted voluntary leaving and he has not shown just cause for doing so.
Decision 24311
Full Text of Decision 24311
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
tantamount to leaving |
|
Summary:
The Board found the claimant, by his attitude (inviting his employer to lay him off), contributed to the expectation that he would be laid off and, within this meaning, claimant was found to have voluntarily left his job. Held that the Board's decision in this respect should not be disturbed.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
legislation |
burden of proof |
|
Decision 24194
Full Text of Decision 24194
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
tantamount to leaving |
|
Summary:
Claimant insisted on having a day off which the employer was not prepared to allow, and was terminated the day after. The Board had an obligation to consider whether there was a misunderstanding. Was it reasonable for claimant to conclude that the employer was acquiescing to his not being at work?
Decision 21536
Full Text of Decision 21536
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
tantamount to leaving |
|
Summary:
Dismissed because he had told the employer that he could not work the required shifts which was made up of 4 nights and 1 day; this interfered with his home life. The Commission determined that this was tantamount to voluntary leaving. Upheld by the Board and the Umpire.
Decision 17867
Full Text of Decision 17867
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
tantamount to leaving |
|
Summary:
Government worker who, upon being nominated as a candidate for the forthcoming Federal election, was required to take leave of absence. This amounts to a voluntary separation. In view of the high-minded purpose of the reason for the leave, disqualification reduced to 2 weeks.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
leave of absence granted |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
personal reasons |
election campaign |
|
Decision 15931
Full Text of Decision 15931
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
tantamount to leaving |
|
Summary:
Refused to come to scheduled meeting at work relating to certain projects and to report for work the next day. Evidence overwhelming that he left, or dismissal but a voluntary leaving in disguise. Disqualification reduced to 3 weeks due to strong-held feelings about his work.
Decision 15495
Full Text of Decision 15495
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
tantamount to leaving |
|
Summary:
Claimant employed as appliance repair apprentice and was expected to provide his tools. Termination occurred when he advised his employer his tools were lost. Decision for voluntary leaving due to his being responsible for the loss of his employment upheld. Reduced to 2 weeks.
Decision 13936
Full Text of Decision 13936
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
tantamount to leaving |
|
Summary:
Day worker replaced when refused to work some evenings and Sundays. Although claimant was laid off, the jurisprudence is clear that when a claimant precipitates by her voluntary conduct the termination of her employment she falls under s.41 as voluntarily leaving employment.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
working conditions |
hours |
|
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
length |
|
Decision 13448
Full Text of Decision 13448
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
tantamount to leaving |
|
Summary:
Discussion with employer became heated and the insured put on her coat and left; employer then told her not to come back. Board concluded she left voluntarily. No error of law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
decision by another body |
|
Decision 12504
Full Text of Decision 12504
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
tantamount to leaving |
|
Summary:
The Board concluded that the employer had the legal right to demand payment of the monies and in refusing to make such payment claimant had exercised his choice to run the risk of dismissal with justification. He therefore left. No error.
Decision 10991
Full Text of Decision 10991
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
tantamount to leaving |
|
Summary:
After numerous absences, claimant warned next case of unauthorized absence will result in dismissal. Absented himself 1 day a week after and did not return. Unreasonable to assume he would be dismissed but only if absence unexcused. I agree this is voluntary leaving.
Decision 10779
Full Text of Decision 10779
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
tantamount to leaving |
|
Summary:
Court ordered reinstatement and insured refused to go back to work; issue dealt with as voluntairly leaving and disqualification reduced to 1 week from 4.
Decision 28430
Full Text of Decision 28430
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
threat by union |
|
Summary:
Held that s. 29 protecting union rights was not an issue to be considered by the Board. The Umpire then quotes from CUB 4637 to the effect that pressure exerted upon the employee by his union was a purely personal matter between him and the union having nothing to do with his contract of employment.
Decision 26618
Full Text of Decision 26618
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
threat by union |
|
Summary:
Claimant was about to be accepted by a union as a new member. He was advised by the union that he should quit his non-union job immediately. CUBs 8096 and 21675 state that this is a personal matter between the union and the member. Applying this, I find that claimant left without just cause.
Decision 24987
Full Text of Decision 24987
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
threat by union |
|
Summary:
Claimant became dissatisfied with his Union since it chose not to enforce an arbitration ruling obtained in his favour. He directed his employer to cease deducting union dues. The Union in turn directed the employer to dismiss him. Held that this amounted to voluntary leaving without just cause.
Decision 21675
Full Text of Decision 21675
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
threat by union |
|
Summary:
Informed after 1 month that if he continued to work for a non-union job he would jeopardize his chances for union employment. Union membership is a personal matter between the union and the member and cannot be considered as just cause so as to impose liability on the UI fund.
Decision 27603
Full Text of Decision 27603
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
transfer |
|
Summary:
The Bank in Winnipeg confirmed that claimant was transferred upon her request from B.C. and was placed in the Bank's casual pool in anticipation of regular work within 3 months of her relocation. Held that she never did leave her employment with the Bank, voluntarily or otherwise.
Decision 25468
Full Text of Decision 25468
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
transfer |
|
Summary:
Apprentice electrician who refused a 3-day assignment at another location some distance away. It was certainly open to the Board to consider that as a constructive quitting by him when he refused to work where the employer considered he was needed.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
working conditions |
change |
|
Decision 19742A
Full Text of Decision 19742A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
transfer |
|
Summary:
Claimant left upon being forced to accept a transfer and being unable to claim family moving expenses because the Armed Forces did not recognize common-law relationships for that purpose. The employment contract made it clear that relocation was a requirement of the employment, said the Board.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
armed forces |
|
Decision 22347
Full Text of Decision 22347
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
transfer |
|
Summary:
Due to re-organization, position of assistant buyer redundant. Was offered a choice of two positions with a significant reduction in responsibilities and either a reduction or freeze in salary. Loss of prestige. I am unable to conclude that he falls within any of the 5 circumstances of ss. 28(4).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
working conditions |
change |
|
Decision 17223
Full Text of Decision 17223
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
transfer |
|
Summary:
Railway employee who did not use bumping rights. The job offer was 200 miles away with only camp accommodation. He would have had to leave wife behind. No car, no bus service, not even the train would take him home on weekends. He did what a reasonable person would do.
Decision 12748
Full Text of Decision 12748
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
transfer |
|
Summary:
Transferred to U.S.A. Decided to return after several months. Some question as to whether re-employed by the Canadian Company afterwards. It is clear that for the Company he was an employee of the organization, whether in Canada or USA. Just cause not shown.
From London to Mississauga. Quit due to long drive and unwillingness to relocate family. There were short term alternatives such as commuting only on weekends until other work found. He did act precipitously.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
layoff or separation |
new ownership |
|
Decision 11646
Full Text of Decision 11646
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
transfer |
|
Summary:
I am satisfied that it was a part of claimant's contract that he should have accepted such a transfer and that his refusal to accept the transfer was tantamount to voluntarily leaving.
Transfer was a condition of employment. Refused transfer in same province because wife would have to quit job, selling house, climatic conditions, change of schools. These are all good reasons but not compelling in nature for just cause. 4-week disqualification proper.
Decision 11090
Full Text of Decision 11090
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
transfer |
|
Summary:
Bank employee who refused a transfer from Peterborough to Toronto. A denial of 2 weeks' benefits because claimant not inflicted with wholly involuntary unemployment not to be redressed simply because he dislikes the new position.
Decision 27424
Full Text of Decision 27424
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
ultimatum |
|
Summary:
Claimant gave notice that he was not prepared to return to work unless he was restored to his old position at a new rate of pay. In those circumstances it is reasonable to conclude that constructively there was a termination of employment on the part of claimant voluntarily promoted.
Decision 25359A
Full Text of Decision 25359A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
ultimatum |
|
Summary:
Claimant did threaten to resign and whether he intended the result or not, the employer pre-empted him and did unexpectedly accept his resignation. If that is so, he was not terminated either without cause or with cause. As per the Board, he left voluntarily, albeit unexpectedly.
Decision 19337
Full Text of Decision 19337
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
ultimatum |
|
Summary:
The claimant was given an ultimatum to either apologize to an employee who was not his supervisor and to whom he had not been rude or to leave. This is not voluntary leaving. This is a firing or a constructive dismissal.
Decision 17969
Full Text of Decision 17969
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
ultimatum |
|
Summary:
It is difficult to see how accepting a threatened resignation and refusing to permit one to withdraw it can be a dismissal. His insistence that he would only work to full capacity if he got a raise is not an ultimatum which many employers would accept.
Decision 16949
Full Text of Decision 16949
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
ultimatum |
|
Summary:
The employer said he had given an ultimatum to the insured person in the following terms: "If you are not satisfied, you do not have to stay and you can prepare your record of employment": which she did. It was not an error in law to conclude that this was voluntary termination of employment.
Decision 15896
Full Text of Decision 15896
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
ultimatum |
|
Summary:
The insured stated that she would not report to work if a certain employee went there regularly. The Board concluded that this was equivalent to a firing that could just as well be considered a voluntary termination. I have nothing to add to that conclusion.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
legislation |
questions to examine |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
decision incomplete |
various |
Decision 14251A
Full Text of Decision 14251A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
ultimatum |
|
Summary:
Claimant asked for a $500 travel advance to make a scheduled trucking trip. Request refused: against company policy. He indicated he might not be able to continue if money not found. He was able to make other arrangements but someone there to replace him when he returned.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
legislation |
questions to examine |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
decision incomplete |
various |
Decision A0042.13
Full Text of Decision A0042.13
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
unauthorized leave of absence |
|
Summary:
The claimant was incarcerated from March 6 to April 16, 2012 as a result of a complaint filed by his spouse that he had uttered death threats against her. On March 8, 2012, he received a letter from his employer informing him that his absence was unauthorized ans asking him to appear at work and justify his absence. While still incarcerated, the claimant contacted his manager to explain that he had no choice but to resign, given that he did not know when he would be released. On April 20, 2012, he filed a claim for benefits. The Commission informed the claimant that it could not pay him benefits because he had voluntarily left his employment without just cause. By allowing the application for judicial review, the FCA explained that the concept of misconduct does not require proof of penal liability. The FCA repeated the test for misconduct and found that the evidence showed that the claimant’s behaviour had led to his incarceration and to the loss of his employment. The FCA indicated that the BOR had not taken into account this evidence and that the Umpire should have intervened.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
jail sentence |
|
Decision A0457.10
Full Text of Decision A0457.10
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
unauthorized leave of absence |
|
Summary:
The claimant signed an employment contract stipulating that he would be entitled to three weeks of paid holidays upon completing one year of service. A few months later, he requested vacation leave. His request was denied in part because the claimant did not complete one year of service. The record suggests that the claimant informed his employer that he would not report to work for the days in question, regardless of the fact that his leave request had been denied. The employer informed him that he had abandoned his employment. According to the FCA, the Commission clearly found that the event triggering the loss of employment was the voluntary act of insisting on taking days off without the consent of the employer.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
personal reasons |
leave or holidays |
|
Decision A0636.08
Full Text of Decision A0636.08
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
unauthorized leave of absence |
|
Summary:
The Umpire allowed the appeal of the claimant from a decision of the BOR indicating that he had been dismissed from his employment by reason of his own misconduct. The Umpire held that there was no evidence supporting the BOR's finding of fact that the claimant left for vacation knowing that his leave request had not been approved. The FCA indicated that it was unreasonable for the BOR to conclude as it did and held that the most the BOR could have found on the evidence before it was that the claimant went on a vacation knowing that he had not received formal approval of his leave request.
Decision A0376.08
Full Text of Decision A0376.08
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
unauthorized leave of absence |
|
Summary:
In this case, the Umpire had allowed the claimant's appeal from a decision of the BOR. The Umpire had found that s. 32(1) of the EIA was not applicable because there had been no agreement between the claimant and her employer as to the date which she would resume employment, as required by s. 32(1)(b) of the EIA. In allowing the application, the FCA held that the two conditions set out in s. 32(1) of the EIA were met. Firstly, the period of leave was authorized by the employer and secondly, the date of the claimant's return to her job was agreed to between the employer and the claimant. The Umpire's decision was set aside.
Decision 65154
Full Text of Decision 65154
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
unauthorized leave of absence |
|
Summary:
The claimant was often absent from the workplace for prolonged periods of time which he asserts was related to legal proceeding. The employer tolerated these absences to a certain point, but when the claimant failed to show up for work in May 2005, he was deemed to have left his employment and was thereby terminated. It is well established that when an employee is absent without leave for a prolonged period, and without notice, this may be construed as voluntary termination.
Decision 26856
Full Text of Decision 26856
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
unauthorized leave of absence |
|
Summary:
Requested 6 weeks of leave to allow her to visit her family in Vietnam but was given only 3. The Board's conclusion that the claimant in effect quit her job when she knowingly decided to embark upon an unauthorized vacation cannot be put in issue.
Decision 23892
Full Text of Decision 23892
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
unauthorized leave of absence |
|
Summary:
Left because he was denied a 6-week leave of absence. Father ill and hospitalized in Lebanon. Medical certificate on file. Did not act in a prudent manner. Had he informed his employer of his father's health condition, he might have been granted leave. He is really the author of his own misfortune.
Decision 19508
Full Text of Decision 19508
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
unauthorized leave of absence |
|
Summary:
4 weeks' leave following vacation. True that the employer could have been more accommodating by notifying him earlier that it would only allow 1 week but it was under no obligation to do so. Claimant assumed, without reason, that his request was grantedand made travel plans.
The employer had a perfect right to refuse the claimant's request and it did so. The claimant as well had a perfect right to refuse to return to work when he was scheduled to do so but must now bear the consequences of that decision.
Decision 14239A
Full Text of Decision 14239A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
unauthorized leave of absence |
|
Summary:
The claimant admitted that he was told there was no work for only 1 or 2 days and yet left town for 7 days. The Board found that this amounted to voluntarily leaving and I am not prepared to interfere with that finding.
Decision 16308
Full Text of Decision 16308
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
unauthorized leave of absence |
|
Summary:
It has already been decided that when an employee is absent without leave for a prolonged period and without notice, this can be construed as voluntary termination. In this case, a 2 day absence with advanced notice cannot be interpreted as termination. Absurd conclusion by the Board.
Decision 14166
Full Text of Decision 14166
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
unauthorized leave of absence |
|
Summary:
Requested leave to go on a visit to Holland to see mother-in-law who was quite ill. He was warned that this would mean termination. The Board found that this was voluntarily leaving. In my view, the Board could have come to no other decision than it did.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
personal reasons |
illness in family |
|
Decision 13550
Full Text of Decision 13550
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
unauthorized leave of absence |
|
Summary:
According to the case law, quitting a job because leave is denied is not just cause.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
contradictory |
|
Decision 13389
Full Text of Decision 13389
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
unauthorized leave of absence |
|
Summary:
The claimant brought about the termination of his employment through his own failure to return when he should have, or to advise his employer otherwise.
Decision 11994
Full Text of Decision 11994
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
unauthorized leave of absence |
|
Summary:
Claimant left at 5:30 instead of at 7:30 without permission and after having been warned she might have to suffer the consequences. She had every intention however of continuing with her employment. This is not voluntarily leaving employment.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
correction to consider |
|
Decision 11501
Full Text of Decision 11501
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
unauthorized leave of absence |
|
Summary:
Gave notice to employer he would leave one month on vacation. Leave denied but he nevertheless left on vacation. The jurisprudence supports this conclusion: tantamount to voluntary leaving. There are no extenuating circumstances to reduce the maximum 6 weeks.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| sickness benefits |
otherwise available |
|
|
Decision 53566
Full Text of Decision 53566
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
voluntary layoff |
|
Summary:
The claimant, who was not affected by the temporary layoff (for about two months) due to his seniority, opted for the voluntary temporary layoff on his own volition. That was a personal decision, and the generosity a more senior employee offers to a younger colleague cannot prevent the Act from being strictly applied.
Decision 45806
Full Text of Decision 45806
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
voluntary layoff |
|
Summary:
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.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
workforce reduction |
|
Decision 45745
Full Text of Decision 45745
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
voluntary layoff |
|
Summary:
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.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
workforce reduction |
|
Decision 39960
Full Text of Decision 39960
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
voluntary layoff |
|
Summary:
Claimant did not examine the alternatives available to him and implications when he voluntered to be laid off. Had he done so, the employer would have retained his services. That is one of "all of the circumstances" which must be taken into account when determining he he had just cause for voluntary leaving and having others to bear the burden of his unemployment.
Decision 29307
Full Text of Decision 29307
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
voluntary layoff |
|
Summary:
Claimant is one of the 5 organizers of the company who each hold 20% of the shares and all are directors. In his capacity of president and general manager, he laid himself off and applied for UI. He volunteered to lay himself off instead of one of the 5 employees left during the winter season.
Decision 29011
Full Text of Decision 29011
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
voluntary layoff |
|
Summary:
Due to a decline in business 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 the elements of a workforce reduction under reg. 56.1.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
workforce reduction |
|
Decision 26406
Full Text of Decision 26406
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
voluntary layoff |
|
Summary:
Having the most seniority in his category, the claimant could only be laid off if he presented a written request, which had to be approved by the company. He not only sacrificed the protection guaranteed to him by his seniority, but he also asked not to work.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
incompatible situations |
layoff requested |
|
Decision 25301
Full Text of Decision 25301
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
voluntary layoff |
|
Summary:
In signing the request for layoff despite his seniority right that allowed him to be transferred to another department, as the employer was indeed prepared to do, it was the claimant himself who took the initiative of terminating his employment without just cause.
Decision 22031
Full Text of Decision 22031
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
voluntary layoff |
|
Summary:
Claimant concluded that it was the wise decision for her not to displace another nurse but to accept a lay-off and wait for her position to re-open. No evidence that the position would re-open. I must conclude that, by having decided not to bump a less senior nurse, she decided to voluntarily quit.
Decision 21947
Full Text of Decision 21947
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
voluntary layoff |
|
Summary:
In accordance with the collective agreement, if a lay-off is anticipated, a more senior employee may elect either to be laid off with rights to recall after 3 or 6 months, or to remain at work while a person with less seniority would be sent home. Claimant opted for the lay-off.
Decision 21398
Full Text of Decision 21398
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
voluntary layoff |
|
Summary:
It is not disputed that the business was obliged to cut expenditures. Claimant was given the choice as to whether he continued through the winter on reduced hours and pay or whether he quit. He himself said that he chose to stop because he would make more on UI.
Decision 20933
Full Text of Decision 20933
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
voluntary layoff |
|
Summary:
Hired with the understanding that he would only work during the bedding plant season and thereafter would be leaving to pursue his music career. It was his intention from the outset to work for the nursery only during the season and the employer and he did have such an agreement.
Decision 20110
Full Text of Decision 20110
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
voluntary layoff |
|
Summary:
Barring exceptional circumstances, to accept voluntary layoff rather than choose to remain on the job and bump another employee must be considered voluntarily leaving without just cause. The argument that someone would be laid off and benefits would have to be paid is dismissed.
Had the claimants elected to remain on the job for the summer months, their positions were not available. They would have had to accept less desirable positions, unrelated to their normal jobs. As per CUB 4671, they had just cause for leaving.
Decision 18058
Full Text of Decision 18058
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
voluntary layoff |
|
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.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
commuting |
distance too great |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
decision incomplete |
various |
Decision 18062
Full Text of Decision 18062
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
voluntary layoff |
|
Summary:
Ss.40(1) quoted with emphasis on "since the interruption of earnings". The facts disclose that claimant was employed at the time in question. He declined to accept alternate employment. He opted for voluntary lay-off status. Ss.41(1) might have been applicable, not 40(1).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| refusal of work |
preceding the interruption of earnings |
|
|
Decision 17001
Full Text of Decision 17001
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
voluntary layoff |
|
Summary:
Railway gang labourer who could exercise his option to be laid off when work completed for winter and no work available within 50 miles. This is not voluntarily leaving. Each case to be decided on its own facts, not unlike cases of "suitability of employment".
Decision 16183
Full Text of Decision 16183
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
voluntary layoff |
|
Summary:
The right to recall does not constitue employment. This is in fact refusal to apply for a job and not voluntary termination. The Board and the judge can only rule on the decision rendered and not on that which CEIC could have or should have made.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
decision not to reconsider |
|
Decision 15804
Full Text of Decision 15804
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
voluntary layoff |
|
Summary:
Case law is clear; Section 41 still applies to an insured individual who is laid off when he could have maintained his employment because of seniority. Wanting to provide some advantage to colleagues is not sufficient. Disqualification reduced to 3 weeks.
Decision 15590
Full Text of Decision 15590
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
voluntary layoff |
|
Summary:
An agreement with his supervisor regarding whether he quit or was laid off does not change the fact that claimant approached the employer and asked to be let go.
Decision 11682A
Full Text of Decision 11682A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
voluntary layoff |
|
Summary:
Principle of just cause in case of early retirement as stated in TANGUAY and CREW also applies in case of lay-off according to reverse seniority system. Legislation applies to individual before community. Disqualification reduced to 2 weeks.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
incompatible situations |
layoff requested |
|
Decision 11894
Full Text of Decision 11894
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
voluntary layoff |
|
Summary:
Layoff list posted for signature by which employees can elect to be among those laid off. Then laid off by inverse seniority. Held not available for work. Disqualification for voluntary leaving not at issue.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| sickness benefits |
otherwise available |
|
|
| availability for work |
incompatible situations |
layoff requested |
|
Decision 11494
Full Text of Decision 11494
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
voluntary layoff |
|
Summary:
Mining company offering compensation to encourage employees to accept lay-offs. Would not have done if it had known consequences for benefits.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
personal reasons |
altruistic considerations |
|
Decision A-0097.03
Full Text of Decision A-0097.03
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
voluntary leaving defined |
|
Summary:
The claimant quit his job after his employer reduced his salary and argued that this amounted to constructive dismissal and he should not have to establish just cause. The Court stated that the common law concept of constructive dismissal is a different issue from the issue of whether an employee has voluntarily left employment under the Act. The Court does not accept the claimant's argument that this means he left his employment involuntarily, as he had other alternatives.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
errors in law |
|
|
Decision 56125
Full Text of Decision 56125
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
voluntary leaving defined |
|
Summary:
Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0097.03
Decision A-0003.95
Full Text of Decision A-0003.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
voluntary leaving defined |
|
Summary:
Claimant did not quit but was dismissed. In reviewing a ruling of disqualification based on S.28 of the Act, there is no automatic duty, in all cases, to inquire into the possibility that either of the two causes therein referred to could apply. From evidence at bar, no misconduct proven.
Decision 27488
Full Text of Decision 27488
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
voluntary leaving defined |
|
Summary:
After an incident the employer using harsh language told claimant that if he was not happy he could leave. The Board's conclusion, that claimant had voluntarily left because he had been instructed to do so, is premised on contradictory findings of fact. Not established that he left voluntarily.
Decision 27277
Full Text of Decision 27277
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
voluntary leaving defined |
|
Summary:
Although the claimant tried to return to his employment after handing in his resignation, this does not alter the fact that his separation remains voluntary.
Decision 27136
Full Text of Decision 27136
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
voluntary leaving defined |
|
Summary:
Case law clearly establishes that for leaving to be "voluntary", the claimant must have taken the initiative in severing the employer/employee relationship. The issue of whether or not the employee wished to remain on the job is therefore irrelevant when considering this question.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
legislation |
burden of proof |
|
Decision 23279A
Full Text of Decision 23279A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
voluntary leaving defined |
|
Summary:
Held that a finding of voluntary resignation was perverse in the case of a claimant who was terrified by the threatening conduct of her supervisor who effectively put the words of resignation into claimant's mouth at a time when the claimant lacked the strength to assert herself.
Decision 26595
Full Text of Decision 26595
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
voluntary leaving defined |
|
Summary:
Claimant asked to rescind his resignation from the Armed Forces. Request denied and grievance filed. There is no question that he left voluntarily. As per jurisprudence, once an employee has resigned, he has voluntarily left even though he may subsequently wish to withdraw the resignation.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
armed forces |
|
Decision 24069
Full Text of Decision 24069
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
voluntary leaving defined |
|
Summary:
It is not unusual for a claimant in anger to threaten a resignation and later to try to withdraw it, but sometimes the employer is eager to have the relationship severed, and accepts the resignation. In such cases, it is held that this is not a dismissal but a resignation but a resignation.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
obligation to care for a child |
|
Decision 22863
Full Text of Decision 22863
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
voluntary leaving defined |
|
Summary:
Laid off because she had two children in a child care center and she was unable to meet the exceptional requirements of the employer relating to overtime. Meaning of the word "voluntary" examined. In my view, such a finding on the part of the Board of Referees is not justified by the evidence.
Decision 22680
Full Text of Decision 22680
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
voluntary leaving defined |
|
Summary:
Claimant submitted a letter of resignation but, later on thinking it over, wished to withdraw it. This withdrawal was refused. She argues that there is a legal issue, that the resignation never having been formally accepted, she was entitled to withdraw it. The Board erred in law in accepting this.
Decision 21818
Full Text of Decision 21818
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
voluntary leaving defined |
|
Summary:
Claimant resigned but did return to see his employer on the following Friday to rescind his resignation. As stated in CUB 3305, one who is terminated following notice of his intention to leave must be considered to have left voluntarily even if he laterchanges his mind.
Decision 13930
Full Text of Decision 13930
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
voluntary leaving defined |
|
Summary:
Conditional resignation is a resignation if stated conditions accepted. Employer not entitled to accept resignation and reject conditions. Dismissal therefore occurred when instructed to vacate office, although claimant's letter may have initiated the events.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
dismissal prior to leaving |
|
Decision 13172
Full Text of Decision 13172
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
voluntary leaving defined |
|
Summary:
Contract worker who must terminate contract if he wishes to have vacation. Possibility of returning afterwards. Leaves 9 days before end of contract. Lack of work upon his return. There is no question that he voluntarily left. It was he who took the initiative.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
personal reasons |
leave or holidays |
|
Decision 11935
Full Text of Decision 11935
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
voluntary leaving defined |
|
Summary:
Layoff notice 16-11-84; subsequently advised of assignment to another store. Left after one week at other store. He feels that once he received a notice of layoff that was the end of his employment. In the situation which prevailed, such attitude completely frivolous.
Decision 11652
Full Text of Decision 11652
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
voluntary leaving defined |
|
Summary:
Cannot be said that he was forced to leave: he was discontent with several aspects. Clearly established in case law that claimant voluntarily leaves where he rather than employer takes initiative of terminating contract of employment.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
personal reasons |
family considerations |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
working conditions |
unsatisfactory |
|
Decision 64667
Full Text of Decision 64667
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
vs refusal of work |
|
Summary:
The case law has consistently established that an employee who is entitled to continue working because of seniority but chooses to refuse to do so in order to allow another employee to work, has voluntarily left employment and has not shown just cause within the meaning of the Employment Insurance Act.
Decision 56786
Full Text of Decision 56786
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
vs refusal of work |
|
Summary:
At the end of her term of employment, claimant was offered an extension of her contract for a period of one year. Claimant refused and argued that she did not quit but rather that she was unable to negotiate a new contract. Held by Umpire that the claimant's decision not to accept the extension offered simply means that she refused employment - and chose loss of employment, and unemployment instead. Claimant's alternative was to remain employed until she was able to secure other suitable employment. Claimant appeal dismissed.
Decision 22307
Full Text of Decision 22307
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
vs refusal of work |
|
Summary:
Left after one half-day. It is clear that he would have had good grounds for refusing that job under ss.27(2). However, ss.27(2) is not in issue here. What is in issue is whether he had just cause for leaving by reason of the fact that the working conditions turned out to be unacceptable to him.
Decision A0107.10
Full Text of Decision A0107.10
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
workforce reduction |
|
Summary:
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
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
workforce reduction |
|
Summary:
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
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
workforce reduction |
|
Summary:
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
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
workforce reduction |
|
Summary:
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
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
workforce reduction |
|
Summary:
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
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
workforce reduction |
|
Summary:
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.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
voluntary layoff |
|
Decision 45745
Full Text of Decision 45745
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
workforce reduction |
|
Summary:
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.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
voluntary layoff |
|
Decision 36889
Full Text of Decision 36889
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
workforce reduction |
|
Summary:
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
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
workforce reduction |
|
Summary:
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.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
personal reasons |
retirement |
|
Decision A-0174.95
Full Text of Decision A-0174.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
workforce reduction |
|
Summary:
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
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
workforce reduction |
|
Summary:
Case identical to Pierre Pilon. See summary indexed under A-0174.95
Decision A-0173.95
Full Text of Decision A-0173.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
workforce reduction |
|
Summary:
Case identical to Pierre Pilon. See summary indexed under A-0174.95
Decision 29011
Full Text of Decision 29011
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
workforce reduction |
|
Summary:
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.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
voluntary layoff |
|
Decision 27288
Full Text of Decision 27288
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
workforce reduction |
|
Summary:
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
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
workforce reduction |
|
Summary:
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
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
workforce reduction |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0174.95
Decision 24993
Full Text of Decision 24993
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
workforce reduction |
|
Summary:
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.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
personal reasons |
monetary considerations |
|
