Digest of Benefit Entitlement Principles - Chapter 10

CHAPTER 10

AVAILABILITY FOR WORK

10.9.0 COMMUTING DISTANCE

10.9.1   Urban Communities
10.9.2   Rural Areas
10.9.3   Isolated Areas
10.9.4   Moving From an Urban Centre
10.9.5   Returning Home

10.9.0 COMMUTING DISTANCE

Claimants are expected to make themselves available to the same extent as workers residing in the same community in general. Failing this, it will be said that a claimant has imposed geographical restrictions and a determination will be made of the extent to which chances of obtaining employment in the near future are thereby jeopardized. This is one of the basic principles that has led to the definition of the work area¹.

______________________________

see 10.4.1, "Standard Availability Defined."

10.9.1 Urban Communities

In metropolitan centres, a fair number of employment opportunities are located in the downtown area. Therefore, chances of obtaining employment in the short term may be largely reduced if one is not prepared to travel the distance from home to the core of the city. Unless uncontrollable circumstances make it unfeasible, an objection to accept work downtown may even cast doubt on one's desire to obtain work.

On the other hand, suburban areas also often offer many employment opportunities. In cases of claimants who restrict themselves to a specific area or to specific parts of the city, a determination will be made of the extent to which the chances of obtaining employment are thereby jeopardized. If applicable, once a reasonable period of time has elapsed, they will be disentitled from further benefits¹. Even claimants who have just left an employment in the downtown area and who no longer wish to accept work there may be allowed a reasonable period to look for work in other parts of the city². No period at all will be granted if there are no employment opportunities in the claimant's occupation in the part of the city where work is sought³ or if the existing opportunities are excluded by other restrictions⁴.

Unwillingness to consider employment opportunities outside the greater area of the city or in the surrounding communities must not be regarded as a restriction⁵. The failure to secure work in an occupation for which opportunities are numerous may indicate after a lengthy period of unemployment that the claimant has either imposed restrictions which negate the chances of obtaining such work⁶ or else is not really looking for work.

Claimants who reside in neighbouring communities must make themselves available for work in the city and be prepared to commute daily⁷. It is the responsibility of those who do not have access to a car or to public transportation to arrange a ride with other commuters if a job opportunity arises or, if need be, be prepared to live in the city temporarily⁸.

______________________________

10.9.2 Rural Areas

In order to be considered available for work, claimants residing in a rural area are not required to leave that area where they have always lived in order to go and look for work in cities¹. What is required is that they make themselves available on the same basis as workers are ordinarily in that area, that is throughout the boundaries of what has already been defined as the work area².

To this end, claimants should be prepared to make use of their car or whatever local transportation is available, or make arrangements with someone who commutes. Those who have no means to get to the nearest place where they can reasonably hope to obtain employment clearly fail to prove that they are available for work. The same holds true if one leaves a job there owing to winter road conditions³.

Regardless of the poor conditions of the local labour market, claimants who are prepared to accept work anywhere in the area where they reside can prove that they are available for work throughout the whole duration of their benefit period. This is true of course provided they do not impose restrictions in other respect and demonstrate their desire to work by reasonable efforts to obtain employment⁴.

A more restrictive interpretation will apply in cases of claimants who have just left or refused to accept one of the few jobs they could reasonably hope to obtain or those who have reached an age at which they can no longer hope to be hired by the only local employer. A similar view may be proper in cases of claimants residing in an area where the labour market situation has deteriorated lately to the extent that employment opportunities no longer exist⁵.

______________________________

10.9.3 Isolated Areas

The area in which the claimant was employed while paying unemployment insurance premiums is a determining factor¹. One cardinal rule in insurance matters is that the rights and obligations of the parties are determined at the time of coverage and not at the time the loss occurs². Therefore, a claimant who has had insurable employment in an isolated area and one who has just left an industrial centre to move to that isolated area are not to be dealt with in the same way³.

In other words, the risk insured against is that risk of unemployment as it exists in the particular area where one has lived⁴. In cases where there is no prospect of obtaining new employment, and this is often the case in remote and isolated areas, it may be said that this is the risk against which the claimant was insured. Therefore, this situation by itself must not be held against the claimant to support a finding of non-availability. What is actually expected from people who live and usually earn a living in an isolated area is to make themselves available in all the surrounding communities to which local residents usually commute. They have only to be available for suitable employment, within the meaning of the Act, with no restrictions as to type of employment, rate of pay, hours of work and other working conditions.

As is the case for claimants residing in rural areas, a more restrictive interpretation will apply in cases of claimants who have just left or refused to accept one of the few jobs they could reasonably hope to obtain or those who have reached an age at which they can no longer hope to be hired by the only local employer.

______________________________

Jurisprudence Index/availability for work/restrictions/geographical area/;
Jurisprudence Index/basic concepts/eligibility to benefits/;
Jurisprudence Index/availability for work/restrictions/geographical area/ after moving/; see 10.9.4, "Moving From an Urban Centre";
see 10.4.1, "Standard Availability Defined."

10.9.4 Moving From an Urban Centre

Employment Insurance is essentially designed to cover cases of involuntary and short-term unemployment. It is not intended to provide benefit to individuals who leave their employment in large centres to move to isolated and sparsely populated areas offering little or no job opportunities¹, exposing themselves to the probability of lengthy periods of unemployment².

This consideration should not be interpreted as interfering with one's freedom to choose where to live³. Any resulting disentitlement is not in the nature of a penalty but simply reflects a situation which has not been contemplated under the Employment Insurance Plan⁴.

Therefore, whether an individual has good reasons for moving⁵, has contributed to the plan for several years or is sincerely desirous of finding a new job, these considerations are not enough to satisfy the requirement of availability. The question to ask here is what effect the move from a given urban centre to another area had on the claimant's opportunities of obtaining employment.

The wilfulness of the claimant in making the move should also be considered when a claimant relocates. When the move cannot be characterized as a wilful restriction to the claimant's chances of employment, the claimant will be subjected to the same availability requirements as all other claimants in the new area.

This may be the case when the unity of the family is at issue and the spouse has practically no choice but to move to maintain the family unit. In this circumstance, the move cannot be seen as a wilful restriction to chances of employment in the new area. Claimants who make such a move to follow a spouse when the move is job-related will not have more stringent availability requirements to meet than those claimants long established in the area. This would apply however, only if the move is made to follow a spouse to a new job, and would not apply if the move was not job-related⁶.

People who move from an area in which employment opportunities exist to an area in which these opportunities are limited or virtually nil and whose availability is therefore reduced should generally be granted a reasonable period, varying between two and three months according to the circumstances of the case, to explore the actual employment opportunities in the new area. After this time they should expand their area of availability to prevent the refusal of benefits. It is not necessary to wait until there is virtually no job opportunity to pronounce a disentitlement. This global approach has been the subject of some criticism; the view being that it does not treat new residents in the same way as long-time residents and was leading to arbitrary and unfair decisions. Nevertheless, this approach is one which finds its support in a long line of jurisprudence⁷.

In all cases, it must be shown that the chances of re-employment were reduced by the move. The labour markets in both the old and the new areas must be reviewed and applied to the circumstances. This review must be done on an individual basis and considering all circumstances involved.

Individuals who leave their employment to move from one town to another must not be treated in the same manner as those who leave an urban centre⁸. Provided that the job opportunities are as good in the new town, the move should not in itself be held against the claimant. Finally, the importance of getting adequate information concerning the labour market⁹ should be pointed out in order to clearly show to what extent moving from an urban centre to another area reduced the claimant's opportunities to find employment and what are the real opportunities in the new area.

______________________________

10.9.5 Returning Home

Temporarily leaving one's usual area of residence, in many cases without one's family, to work away in an urban centre or on large projects that generate employment and returning home at more or less regular intervals or when employment ends, are not signs of unavailability. Instead these are obvious efforts to earn a living and be less dependent on a precarious employment situation which may exist in one's own area.

Generally, it is not necessary to consider this person's availability in a manner different from a resident of the same area who did not go away and was instead working in the area¹. In both cases, they must make themselves available in the same way as is ordinarily done by workers who live in that area², that is, in all the surrounding communities to which local residents usually commute to go to work. Furthermore, this must be without restrictions as to what, within the meaning of the Act, could be considered a suitable type of employment, rate of pay, hours of work and other working conditions. In such a case, their availability would not be in doubt.

______________________________

Jurisprudence Index/availability for work/restrictions/geographical area/after moving/;
see 10.9.3, "Isolated Areas."

index