Employment Insurance (EI)

Decision

[1] The appeal is dismissed. The Tribunal disagrees with the Appellant.

[2] The Appellant hasn’t shown just cause (in other words, a reason the law accepts) for leaving his job when he did. The Appellant didn’t have just cause because he had reasonable alternatives to leaving. This means he is disqualified from receiving Employment Insurance (EI) benefits.

Overview

[3] The Appellant left his job as a field technologist in Fort McMurray Alberta on October 3, 2022, and applied for EI benefits.

[4] The Canada Employment Insurance Commission (Commission) looked at the Appellant’s reasons for leaving. It decided that he voluntarily left (or chose to quit) his job without just cause, so it wasn’t able to pay him benefits.

[5] I have to decide whether the Appellant has proven that he had no reasonable alternative to leaving his job.

[6] The Commission says that, instead of leaving when he did, the Appellant could have consulted with his doctor regarding his medical issues and taken a leave of absence if recommended. The Commission also said he should have looked for another job and then quit when he found it.^{Footnote 1}

[7] The Appellant disagrees and states that he had to quit for the following reasons:

• Working in cold weather in an open field at his age,
• twelve hour shifts and long days travelling,
• heavy lifting of a radioactive piece of equipment,
• getting sick often due to weakness,
• no time to make food or get groceries,
• his wife lived in Edmonton and had poor health and
• others quit due to harsh conditions.^{Footnote 2}

Issue

[8] Is the Appellant disqualified from receiving benefits because he voluntarily left his job without just cause?

[9] To answer this, I must first address the Appellant’s voluntary leaving. I then have to decide whether the Appellant had just cause for leaving.

Analysis

The parties agree that the Appellant voluntarily left

[10] I accept that the Appellant voluntarily left his job. In his application for benefits, the Appellant says that he quit.^{Footnote 3} And his Record of Employment shows that he quit on October 8, 2022.^{Footnote 4} The Appellant confirmed in testimony that he voluntarily left his job.

[11] There is no evidence to contradict that the Appellant voluntarily left his job and I accept that fact.

The parties don’t agree that the Appellant had just cause

[12] The parties don’t agree that the Appellant had just cause for voluntarily leaving his job when he did.

[13] The law says that you are disqualified from receiving benefits if you left your job voluntarily and you didn’t have just cause.^{Footnote 5} Having a good reason for leaving a job isn’t enough to prove just cause.

[14] The law explains what it means by “just cause.” The law says that you have just cause to leave if you had no reasonable alternative to quitting your job when you did. It says that I have to consider all the circumstances.^{Footnote 6}

[15] It is up to the appellant to prove that he had just cause. He has to prove this on a balance of probabilities. This means that he has to show that it is more likely than not that his only reasonable option was to quit.^{Footnote 7}

[16] When I decide whether the Appellant had just cause, I have to look at all of the circumstances that existed when the Appellant quit. The law sets out some of the circumstances I have to look at.^{Footnote 8}

[17] After I decide which circumstances apply to the Appellant, he then has to show that he had no reasonable alternative to leaving at that time.^{Footnote 9}

The circumstances that existed when the Appellant quit

[18] The Appellant says that three of the circumstances set out in the law applies. He says that there were working conditions that constitute a danger to his health or safety.

[19] He also said in testimony that he had an obligation to accompany a spouse to another residence and that there was excessive overtime work.

[20] I will look at each of these circumstances individually.

Danger to health and safety

[21] The EI Act says an appellant has just cause for voluntarily leaving if the appellant had no reasonable alternative to leaving having regard to working conditions that constitute a danger to health or safety.^{Footnote 10}

[22] Where an appellant says they quit their job because dangerous or unsafe working conditions caused health problems, they have to attempt to resolve the issue with the employer.^{Footnote 11}

[23] The Appellant says that he left his job because he was 65 years old, and the job was too hard and fast paced. He said he had to leave his home at 6:00 a.m. and didn’t get home until 9:00 p.m. as his job site was 80 kilometers from his residence. He says that it was physically exhausting and lost 10 kilograms during his four months working.^{Footnote 12}

[24] In testimony he said that he started on May 25, 2022, and worked through the summer with a device that was radioactive and weighed 30 pounds. He said that he had to use a 10 pound hammer and drive a nail in the ground then use the device. The work was in the field or mine with no building and lots of wind.

[25] The Appellant said that he was able to do the work when he started and for 4 months but then his health declined. He said in testimony that he passed pre-employment physical testing, but he was in good health then.

[26] He said at the hearing that the main reason he quit on October 8, 2022, was because he recognized that the weather would be getting colder.

[27] The Appellant told the Commission that he decided to leave because of the cold wind.^{Footnote 13}

[28] The Appellant said that when he started work, he didn’t know all the days would be in the field even though he knew he was working on road construction. He also said at the hearing that his duties were the same from when he started on May 24, 2022, but the weather was a factor in the fall.

[29] The Appellant also says to the Commission that he asked for a transfer but did not get a response from his employer.^{Footnote 14} In testimony he said that he asked for a transfer to a location closer to Fort McMurray so that he would have shorter days, but they didn’t accommodate him.

[30] The Appellant said at the hearing and in his reconsideration request that he caught pneumonia after he submitted his resignation letter but before his scheduled last day of work.^{Footnote 15}  

[31] The Appellant submitted medical notes after the hearing which I have accepted. The notes are difficult to read but indicate some cold and flu symptoms with dates in September, October and December of 2022.^{Footnote 16} The Appellant told the Commission that when he did see his doctor for pneumonia, he was not advised to quit work.^{Footnote 17}

[32] I have no evidence to show that the weight loss that the Appellant experienced was detrimental to his health. It is probable that an increase in physical activity may lead to a weight loss. However, if the Appellant was concerned, he could have discussed with a physician or changed his eating habits to incorporate more calories.

[33] I have no evidence to suggest that his work was the cause of getting pneumonia. While I can understand that getting pneumonia would be a cause for concern; these are not unusual infections and people recover from these regularly.

[34] The medical notes that were provided do not link his work or working conditions to any infections he may have had before quitting work.

[35] The fact that the Appellant asked for a transfer closer to his residence in Fort McMurray demonstrates that he was not overly concerned that the actual work was a danger to his health and safety but that he was looking for a reduction in the hours that he had to travel each day.

[36] The Appellant provided no verifiable evidence that there was any danger to his health and safety.

[37] I find that the Appellant’s situation does not fall under the circumstances of a danger to his health and safety.

[38] The Appellant was doing the same job he was hired for with no change in duties.

[39] The main issue that the Appellant consistently was concerned about was the cold and that can be mitigated with outdoor gear either supplied by the employer or purchased by the Appellant.

[40] So, the Appellant has not shown that his working conditions were a danger to his health and safety.

Obligation to accompany spouse to another residence

[41] The EI Act says an appellant has just cause for voluntarily leaving if the appellant had no reasonable alternative to leaving having regard to an obligation to accompany a spouse to another residence.^{Footnote 18}

[42] The Appellant said in testimony that he believes that the circumstance of accompanying his spouse to another residence applies to him.

[43] The Appellant says in his reconsideration request that his wife wanted him back home.^{Footnote 19} He also said in is appeal request that his wife wanted him to quit.^{Footnote 20}

[44] I accept that the Appellant had to live in Fort McMurray for his work and that his family home where his spouse lived was in Edmonton, Alberta. However, there is no evidence of any need to accompany his spouse to another residence.

[45] I find that the Appellant has not shown that he had an obligation to accompany his spouse to another residence.

Excessive overtime work

[46] The EI Act says an appellant has just cause for voluntarily leaving if the appellant had no reasonable alternative to leaving having regard to excessive overtime.^{Footnote 21}At the hearing, the Appellant said that he believes that the circumstance of excessive overtime work applies to him.

[47] However, at the hearing the Appellant also said that he knew that there would be overtime with this job before he started. He pointed out in testimony how much money he made in the four months that he worked there and given the wages would have stayed if he could.

[48] There is no evidence that for his work situation as a field technologist in Fort McMurray Alberta there was excessive overtime. Working 12 hours days would be more the norm than the exception in that type of work environment.

[49] The Appellant acknowledges this when he referenced the amount of money he made while employed in Fort McMurray.

[50] I find that the Appellant has not proven that he had to work excessive overtime given his job and location.

[51] So, the Appellant has not shown that his working conditions were a danger to his health and safety, that he had an obligation to accompany his spouse to another residence and/or was expected to work excessive overtime.

The Appellant had reasonable alternatives

[52] I must now look at whether the Appellant had no reasonable alternative to leaving his job when he did.

[53] The Appellant says that he had no reasonable alternative because he was sick, he was losing weight and that he was working outside in the cold and winter was coming.

[54] The Appellant testified that he did not ask his employer for a leave of absence as he said the job would be the same upon his return. He said he could not work October to March due to the weather.

[55] The employer told the Commission that there was no other job to transfer the Appellant to. All the field technologist jobs were outside.^{Footnote 22}

[56] As noted above, the Appellant did ask for a transfer closer to Fort MacMurray as it would reduce his travel time and work day.

[57] The Commission disagrees and says that the Appellant didn’t have just cause, because he had reasonable alternatives to leaving when he did. Specifically, it says that the Appellant could have gone to a doctor prior to quitting and see if he could get medical leave from work.^{Footnote 23}

[58] The Commission says that they confirmed with the employer that the Appellant did not raise the physical work as an issue with them. The employer further said that the Appellant could have asked for a leave of absence but did not.^{Footnote 24}

[59] I find that the Appellant did ask for a transfer informally with his supervisors however I find that he did not ask for a leave of absence.

[60] It is clear from the evidence and testimony of the Appellant that he wanted to shorten his work day although he knew he would still have to work outdoors. I believe him when he said in testimony that he talked to his supervisors about getting a position closer to his residence.

[61] It is equally clear that the Appellant did not ask for a leave of absence as he didn’t think it would be granted. However, in the Commission’s discussion with the employer, the employer said that the Appellant could have asked for a leave of absence.^{Footnote 25}

[62] I find that the Appellant hasn’t shown that he had no reasonable alternative to voluntarily leaving.

[63] He could have consulted with his doctor to determine their assessment of his ability to continue working. Or whether medical treatment or prevention for any ailments he may have had would help or the doctor could have recommended a period of sick leave.

[64] The Appellant could have asked his employer for a leave of absence in order to rest which may have allowed him to continue to work. He also could have used that time to gain other employment prior to quitting.

[65] In addition, the Appellant could have asked his employer for more robust cold weather gear to help protect him from the elements.

[66] The Appellant could also have used his scheduled time off to seek and obtain other employment before quitting his job.

[67] So, I am of the view that he didn’t have just cause for voluntarily leaving within the meaning of the Act.

[68] While I appreciate that the Appellant felt that at an age of 65 years old the work and weather were difficult, the issue before me remains whether he had no reasonable alternative to leaving his job.

[69] Considering the circumstances that existed when the Appellant quit, the Appellant had reasonable alternatives to leaving when he did, for the reasons set out above.

[70] This means the Appellant didn’t have just cause for leaving his job.

Conclusion

[71] I find that the Appellant is disqualified from receiving benefits.

[72] This means that the appeal is dismissed.