Common sense of unemployment insurance policy necessary for immigration to Canada

The unemployment insurance system in Canada is generally provided to employees who have been dismissed, or who have lost their jobs due to factors beyond their active control, or who have stopped working due to work-related injuries or pregnancy. If a party leaves his job voluntarily, does not work or is dismissed due to work mistakes, he will not receive unemployment insurance benefits in principle. Federal government office applying for unemployment insurance benefits.

The Unemployment Benefit Committee, which decides whether to pay insurance benefits, recently refused to pay unemployment benefits to an employee who resigned from his employer. The parties refused to accept the decision, and the two sides went to court twice, but the unemployment relief Committee lost both lawsuits.

The first lawsuit of this unemployment benefit is that after the party was refused unemployment benefit, he appealed to the ordinary court of the Social Security Arbitration Court. His reasons include that he didn't have time for an interview after work, so he was forced to resign.

As for other reasons, there is a big difference between the actual job and the position I hoped for when I applied, so there is no possibility of job hopping.

The Canadian Unemployment Relief Committee believes that the employee has no reasonable reason to resign and therefore should not receive unemployment benefits.

The unemployment relief committee confronted the employee in the ordinary court of the social security arbitration court. The Committee believes that apart from leaving the job, the employee concerned can take other measures, that is, continue to hold the current job while looking for another job.

It is difficult to interview while working.

The party concerned told the arbitrator of the ordinary court that it was difficult for him to apply for a job while working. Because during his working hours, how to find time to participate in the recruitment interview is an insurmountable difficulty for him.

He can't tell the truth to his employer and ask for a day off to attend the interview, because such an interview will continue. He also doesn't want to lie to his employer and make up various reasons to go for a job interview.

He finally found a new job and didn't devote himself to job hunting until he resigned.

The employee also applied to the employer to see if it was possible to transfer him to other departments to do the job of logistics manager he wanted when he applied for this company.

In this regard, the arbitrator of the ordinary court cited another case, namely the lawsuit between the Ministry of Justice and Chaoui. The judge of the Court of Appeal of the Federal Court, who accepted the Chaoui case, believed that the reason for the client's resignation was that the job actually assigned to him after he applied for the company was very different from the position promised to him by his employer when he applied for the job, which could be used as a reason for his reasonable and voluntary resignation.

To sum up, the arbitrator of the ordinary court believes that the employee concerned tried to find a new job before resigning, but found it difficult to take care of both; He also asked if the employer could transfer to other departments, and the employer clearly replied that there was no other department to transfer and no job as a logistics manager that employees wanted.

It is understandable to expect failure and resignation.

In this case, the employee's job as an order taker at that time was quite different from his expected job, so his resignation was understandable.

Regarding the decision of the arbitrator of the ordinary court, the Unemployment Relief Committee believes that there is no evidence to support this statement, and the actual work of employees is not substantially different from their expectations when applying for a job. Moreover, when the arbitrator cited the above cases, he did not explain how these cases were applicable to this case from a legal perspective.

The Committee also believes that in order to meet the standard of reasonable resignation, the employee needs to prove that his working conditions have reached an intolerable level, and there is no choice but to resign. But the parties in this case do not meet this standard.

This time, it is the turn of the Unemployment Relief Committee to appeal to the Appeals Chamber of the Social Security Arbitration Court.

In response to the Committee's rebuttal, the arbitrator of the Appeals Chamber of the Social Security Arbitration Tribunal held that the Committee determined that the reason for employees' resignation was dissatisfaction with their jobs. However, the arbitrator of the ordinary court found that he failed to take up the post he applied for after taking up the post, and only about 5% of his job content was consistent with the post of logistics manager he wanted to do, which meant that his job responsibilities had changed greatly. Finally, the arbitrator of the Court of Appeal ruled that there was no mistake in the decision of the ordinary court, and the appeal of the Unemployment Relief Committee was rejected. Although the employee resigned voluntarily, he can still receive unemployment insurance.