Summary of Issue: Retirement

Decision 76441 Full Text of Decision 76441

The claimant was given a difficult choice when it was discovered he could no longer obtain the necessary security clearance to do his job because of a criminal charge. He had two choices: (1) leave employment and take a retirement package or (2) be dismissed without the severance package. He did not look for other employment prior to leaving and did not seek a transfer. He therefore accepted the retirement package. The Commission held: in so doing, he had voluntarily left his employment without just cause. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed by the Umpire.

Decision 77528 Full Text of Decision 77528

The claimant states she quit her employment through voluntary retirement pursuant to Sections 29 and 30 of the Employment Insurance Act. She qualified for the early Canada Pension benefits. The claimant did return to work under a contract but this work was not insurable. The employment insurance system was not established to help retirees increase their pension income but to help individuals who become unemployed for reasons beyond their control. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed by the Umpire.

Decision 76440 Full Text of Decision 76440

The claimant was denied benefits, the Commission having ruled she had voluntarily left her employment without just cause, within the meaning of ss. 29 and 30 of the Employment Insurance Act. The claimant took advantage of the retirement package since her job had become too fast paced for her and too difficult, and she was looking for lighter-duty work. According to the employer, the claimant would still be employed if she had not accepted the package, it is obvious from the file of appeal that, because of her seniority, she would not have been laid off. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed by the Umpire.

Decision 72685 Full Text of Decision 72685

The claimant left his employment because he was retiring. He added that he had voluntarily decided to retire and that this was not related to his age or to health problems. He added that he was able to take an early retirement at age 55 and had chosen to do so and look for work closer to his home. The Commission determined that the claimant had voluntarily left his employment without just cause and imposed an indefinite disqualification. The Commission's appeal is allowed and the Board of Referees' decision is set aside by the Umpire

Decision 72211 Full Text of Decision 72211

The claimant was 72 years of age and had worked for the same employer for approximately 20 years. She requested to take her retirement and gave a four-month notice and left. In doing so, she triggered her unemployment since she was not due to retire but felt, having consulted her doctor, she could not continue work in a stressed environment. It is well established law that when one goes on early retirement or prior to the compulsory retirement age set by the employer, it is deemed the person triggered her unemployment and benefits are almost automatically denied. The Umpire dismissed the Appeal.

Decision 71411 Full Text of Decision 71411

The claimant worked for over ten years with his employer up to July 31, 2007. At that time he voluntarily retired. He quit his job because of retirement, having reached 65, as well as having health problems. Evidence from the employer was that there was no mandatory retirement policy with the company and the claimant could have continued working after age 65. The employer also stated that they had no information concerning the claimant having medical problems that would cause him to retire. The employer also stated that if there were some problems for the claimant continuing his job, they may have accommodated him with lighter duties. The appeal of the claimant is dismissed.

Decision 39292 Full Text of Decision 39292

The jurisprudence has established that a claimant who retires when he is entitled to continue working is deemed to have voluntarily left his employment within the meaning of subsection 28(1) of the Act and does not have just cause for doing so under subsection 28(4) of the Act.

Decision 39092 Full Text of Decision 39092

Claimant made a personal choice to take early retirement and relocate to his wife's home town. The jurisprudence has clearly established that although a claimant may have good reasons to leave an employment, these reasons do not necessarily constitute "just cause" within the meaning of the Act. In this case, it was a personal decision.

Decision 35453 Full Text of Decision 35453

In 12-92, the claimant was notified that she could receive insurance only if she took early retirement before 12-93. This was a personal choice; the employer exerted no pressure. She knew one year beforehand that she would be unemployed. Should have looked for a job.

Decision 34458 Full Text of Decision 34458

According to the employer, positions were abolished by attrition. The beneficiary chose to retire in order to receive the early retirement package and take advantage of the pension offered by the employer. This does not meet the criteria for a staff cut program set forth in s. 56.1 of the Regulations. The evidence on record shows that the beneficiary left his position, not in order to make way for a younger employee, but to take advantage of a pre-retirement package and receive the pension offered by the employer. This reason may be a good one, but does not provide sufficient grounds under the Act.

Decision 25325 Full Text of Decision 25325

It may have been perfectly reasonable to make the value judgments he did in choosing early retirement and the options open for him. But he cannot expect to have unqualified UI benefits as the result of a choice which he himself made to quit. UI is for those who cannot get jobs or are laid off.

Decision 21655 Full Text of Decision 21655

Railway worker who opted for early retirement (4 months early). He elected to do it in order to preserve the job of the young man who was working with him as an apprentice. Several arguments put forward. His concern for saving money for the UI fund doesnot provide just cause.

Decision 15286A

Teacher who retired when his age plus years of service equalled 85. He understands voluntary leaving to occur when one leaves before the time at which he had the right to do so. TANGUAY referred to. No doubt he left voluntarily. 2-week disqualification upheld.

Decision 15447 Full Text of Decision 15447

To make an opening for a younger employee is not enough. Claimant must show just cause in terms of his personal employment. Claimant's interest in encouraging the young may be commendable in social terms and may even justify a reduction of disqualification but not just cause.

Decision 12228A Full Text of Decision 12228A

Social pressure exerted by younger people is not sufficient; did not approach fellow workers or employer or try to find other employment; no urgency to leave.

Decision 12655 Full Text of Decision 12655

Disqualified for 2 weeks; TANGUAY considered. Claimant's decision to retire when he did was purely legitimate and personally justifiable. Nonetheless became voluntarily unemployed and liable to penalty.

Decision A-1458.84 Full Text of Decision A-1458.84

Fact that employee may have believed he would have enough money to live without working is not just cause. I would say the same of someone who quit in order to obtain a monetary advantage. [p. 6] The board referred to social pressure. However, there is nothing to show that the insured were ever victims of harassment from younger employees. The mere desire of young people to get older people to give up their positions is not sufficient. [p. 5]

Decision A-0020.82 Full Text of Decision A-0020.82

Package deal offered to older employees of Massey-Ferguson to make way for younger people. The Board's finding that claimant left without just cause is supported by material before them and Umpire erred in law in substituting his own view. 6-week disqualification restored.