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 her job when she did. The Appellant didn’t have just cause because she had reasonable alternatives to leaving. This means she is disqualified from receiving Employment Insurance (EI) benefits from May 13, 2021.

Overview

[3] The Appellant worked for X, a delivery company, and quit on May 13, 2021, after one day at the job. The Canada Employment Insurance Commission (Commission) looked at the Appellant’s reasons for leaving. It decided that she voluntarily left (or chose to quit) her job without just cause, so it wasn’t able to pay her benefits.

[4] I must decide whether the Appellant has proved that she had no reasonable alternative to leaving her employment.^{Footnote 1}

[5] The Commission says the Appellant reported that she quit because she didn’t want to leave her child for full days with her family member, couldn’t manage to lift the heavy boxes required, and wasn’t comfortable driving a large delivery truck. It says she had reasonable options open to her: she could have asked her employer to accommodate her or stayed until she found a new job.

[6] The Appellant says she left her job because it was an on-call position and the employer didn’t give her a set work schedule. She argues that she was only in the job for one day and didn’t consider herself to be fully employed. It wasn’t feasible to arrange childcare on short notice in the morning whenever her employer called her to work. She was also concerned about her ability to drive a large truck and wasn’t able to lift the heavy boxes.

Matter I have to consider first

The Appellant has two appeals before the Tribunal

[7] On September 14, 2023, the Commission made two reconsideration decisions regarding the Appellant’s reasons for leaving two separate jobs. In a related appeal (GE-23-2694), the Appellant argued that she had appealed both decisions, and gave testimony about her reasons for leaving. The Commission suggested that the Appellant make a separate appeal of its decision in this case, to maintain privacy of the information in each file.^{Footnote 2}

[8] The Tribunal opened this appeal file and the Commission sent in its documents. I held a hearing in writing for this appeal to give the Appellant the opportunity to respond to the Commission’s evidence and arguments.^{Footnote 3} I also considered the Appellant’s testimony given in the related appeal, GE-23-2694.^{Footnote 4}

Issue

[9] Is the Appellant disqualified from receiving benefits because she voluntarily left her job with X without just cause?

[10] 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

[11] I accept that the Appellant voluntarily left her job. The Appellant agrees that she quit on May 13, 2021.^{Footnote 5} I see no evidence to contradict this.

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

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

[13] The law says you are disqualified from receiving benefits if you left your job voluntarily and you didn’t have just cause.^{Footnote 6} Having a good reason for leaving a job isn’t enough to prove just cause. 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.

[14] It is up to the Appellant to prove that she had just cause.^{Footnote 7} She has to prove this on a balance of probabilities. This means she must show that it’s more likely than not that her only reasonable option was to quit. When I decide whether the Appellant had just cause, I must look at all of the circumstances that existed when she quit. ^{Footnote 8}

The circumstances that existed when the Appellant quit her job

[15] The Commission says the Appellant reported that she left because it wasn’t a good fit and she didn’t want to leave her child for full days with her mother. According to its records of discussions, the Appellant said she found it difficult to do her job and care for her young child at the same time. She also said that she wasn’t comfortable driving a huge delivery truck and couldn’t meet the job’s lifting requirements.^{Footnote 9}

[16] The Appellant says the Commission didn’t properly record her statements. She had no concerns about leaving her child for a full day with her mother. But she quit the job after one day because the employer couldn’t give her set working hours. She had childcare available, but needed a schedule so that she could plan her childcare. Also, she wasn’t comfortable driving a truck for deliveries, and couldn’t lift the heavy boxes.

[17] I find that the circumstances that existed when the Appellant left her employment were that her employer didn’t offer her a set work schedule. Also, she wasn’t comfortable driving a truck, and felt she couldn’t manage the job’s lifting requirements.

Did the Appellant have reasonable alternatives to leaving her job?

The Commission’s argument

[18] The Commission argues that the Appellant didn’t exhaust all reasonable alternatives to leaving when she did. Specifically, it says that, even if the job wasn’t a good fit, she could have spoken to the employer to see whether they could accommodate her needs. Instead, she assumed that the employer couldn’t accommodate her. Since she had childcare available, it says that she should have stayed in the job until she found new work.^{Footnote 10}

The Appellant’s argument

[19] The Appellant argues that she had no reasonable alternatives to leaving at that time. She says that she needed a work schedule because she couldn’t leave her child on short notice in the morning whenever the employer decided to call her to work.^{Footnote 11}

[20] As she had only completed one training day, the Appellant argues she didn’t consider herself fully employed. She says it wasn’t a reasonable option to remain in the job because she couldn’t do the heavy lifting and wasn’t comfortable driving a truck. The Appellant also argues that she had some mental health issues but couldn’t get medical advice because she didn’t have a family doctor.

The Appellant had reasonable alternatives to quitting

[21] I agree with the Commission that the Appellant had reasonable alternatives to leaving her employment. Even though the Appellant only worked for one day for her employer, she has an obligation to show that she had no reasonable options to leaving when she did.

[22] The Appellant didn’t prove she made reasonable efforts to ask her employer about possible accommodation. I find that a reasonable option for the Appellant would have been to speak with her employer to discuss the type of accommodations she needed. The Appellant could also have got a doctor’s advice on whether to continue in the job. I acknowledge her evidence that she didn’t have a family doctor, but a reasonable alternative would have been to seek advice at a medical walk-in clinic.

[23] An EI regular benefits claimant is expected to be ready, willing, and capable of working during every working day. The Appellant testified that a family member was available to help with childcare, but she needed more notice of her shifts so that she could make childcare arrangements. There is no evidence that the Appellant spoke with her employer to ask whether they could accommodate her need to get advance notice of shifts, provide additional training, or adjust the lifting requirements.

[24] So, I find that the Appellant had reasonable alternatives to leaving her employment at the time she quit.

[25] I have compassion for the Appellant’s situation, but the Employment Insurance Act sets out a strict test and I have to apply the law. I have no authority to make special exceptions, even on the basis of compassion.^{Footnote 12}

Conclusion

[26] I find that the Appellant is disqualified from receiving benefits from May 13, 2021.

[27] This means that the appeal is dismissed.