Refusal of Work
Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, please contact us to request an alternate format.
CUB 22477 - Refusal of employment was allowed because the claimant's circumstances had changed in that she no longer had suitable transportation to her employment and had additional obligations - child care - for her infant, which constituted good cause. It was found that the claimant was a reasonable and prudent person in her circumstances not to have returned to her previous employment. The Umpire allowed this component of the appeal.
Appellant: Komalwatie Singh
CUB 22872 - For refusing employment - Section 27 Act. Claimant was involved in a job creation project, during which time he was offered a casual position for which he refused as it did not offer security or permanency as he required. He was not informed prior to his refusal of this position that he had to be available for work and actively seeking the same. It was found that he was not adequately informed of his responsibilities of the program and that he acted responsibly when he refused the work offered to him. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Colin Rosnes
CUB 34173 - Claimant is appealing the Commission's decision to disqualify her because she was aware of and without good cause refused suitable work. The claimant was working on a part-time - casual basis. Due to lack of notice the claimant refused a shift resulting in a seven week disqualification from benefits. Under the circumstances the umpire found that the claimant had good cause for her refusal. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Marilyn Windsor
CUB 25048 - The claimant refused to accept employment after it had been offered to her and deemed suitable by the Commission - Section 27(1)(a) Act. The claimant refused a job that was for a period of about 20 weeks involving 25 hours of work a week at a rate of $17 per hour. The claimant had indicated to the prospective employer that she was doing supply teaching and suggested that she find someone else; in the event that no one else where available, the claimant would have taken the job. It was found that the claimant had good cause for turning down the position because it would restrict her from securing a full time permanent teaching position. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Jacqueline Aubin-Restoule
CUB 25912 - The claimant was previously laid off from a golf club, when he was recalled he refused the job for the reason that he was moving to Montreal to pursue a musical career. The claimant had invested 15 years of study to music and was currently conducting an extensive job search in the music field. It was found that given the circumstances the claimant's reasons for refusing the employment at the gulf club were reasonable. The Umpire stated that in assessing the suitability of an employment that it " must be settled objectively, by assessing the situation from the viewpoint of the reasonable person. However, contrary to what the Commission alleges, the subjective circumstances of the claimant may be relevant" . The Umpire describes some factors which should be considered: as qualifications of the claimant, nature of employment, age and educational level. The appeal was disallowed.
CUB 43961 - The evidence establishes that claimant did not refuse employment. He accepted employment and then left that employment voluntarily - that is to say he refused to continue that employment. The Board erred by basing its decision on an erroneous finding of fact made in a perverse manner and without regard for the material before it. It also erred in law in attempting to portray leaving employment, because of its duration, as a refusal to accept employment. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Sean Francis
CUB 59775 - The claimant had been employed various times during 2002, but he was laid off for the last time on December 20, 2002, due to a shortage of work. The employer stated that he called the claimant on January 6, 2003 to return to work but the claimant refused to return, as did the claimant's spouse. The claimant denied that he ever received a call from the employer, he also further stated that his wife would not have been taken back because she did not have the proper course of instruction to become an arborist. The claimant pointed out that the reason he could not return to work in January 2003, was because all of the work that had to be completed in Grand Falls using a ladder was done. He also pointed out that he had not worked using a bucket and that the employer usually sent for a crew from St. John's to do that type of work. At the time that he was laid off and at the time of his recall he stated that there was no ladder work and that it was not safe to work at that time year because the trees were not strong because all the strength will be gone until the sap returns in the spring. The Commission felt that the claimant should be entitled to benefits and that both the statements of the claimant and the employer were credible. When the Commission is faced with credible versions of the facts and they cannot decide on who to favour, the benefit of the doubt should be given to the claimant. The appeal was dismissed.
CUB 61516 - Two weeks after the claimant had lost her job, she refused a position that a placement agency had found her. She refused this position because she felt that the position was not suited for her and did not correspond to her profile of what type of work she was looking for. She also felt that she did not meet the requirements that were required and she felt that she would not meet the employer's expectations. She also pointed out that she had only been unemployed for two weeks when she refused a job that she felt did not correspond with her career objectives. The Umpire said that the short span of the unemployment period should have been taken into consideration and that the case law has determined that a period of up to two to three months should be granted when a claimant is looking for work similar to her former employment with similar conditions (CUBs 18504 and 7309).Case law and jurisprudence has also shown that the claimant should have the benefit of a reasonable period of time to find employment at the salary she wanted, given her previous salary, see CUB 9497. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Nathalie Cousineau
CUB 23187 - After 25 years in the garment industry during which she had worked 8 years at the Western Glove, claimant was informed that the method of pay was going to change resulting in a decrease of her wage by 41%. This resulted in the claimant quitting her job. The claimant was 65 years of age at the time. During her job search she was offered a job paying $5 per hour plus piece meal. When she inquired if there was a chance that her wage could amount to $7 per hour, the employer would not comment. It was found that the employment was unsuitable and that the claimant was reasonable in turning it down, especially this soon in her job search. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Leticia Rinon