Digest of Benefit Entitlement Principles - Chapter 9
REFUSAL OF EMPLOYMENT
9.9.0 DISTANCE BETWEEN RESIDENCE AND PLACE OF WORK
9.9.1 Daily Commuting
9.9.2 Work Away from Spouse
9.9.3 Move to Consider
9.9.4 Logging
9.9.0 DISTANCE BETWEEN RESIDENCE AND PLACE OF WORK
The distance between a claimant's residence and the place of the prospective employment, as well as the available means of transportation, are important factors when determining whether there is good cause for refusal or, in another way of considering it, whether the job is suitable. Cases included in this category are grouped under the following four headings:
1) Daily commuting;
2) Work away from spouse;
3) Move to consider;
4) Logging.
Whether they reside in a rural or urban area, it is up to claimants to find a means of transportation that will enable them to get to areas where people of the same locality ordinarily go to work. Applying this principle to a person who resides in a small village, refusal of employment by reason of lack of transportation to neighbouring communities1 or by reason of unwillingness to use the available means of transportation is not with good cause2. Likewise, a claimant residing in a large industrial city or suburb would do well not to submit that the trip is too long when it is a practice to contend with for the residents of that area.
Even when bus schedules do not correspond exactly and result in rather long waits, it is often preferable to put up with these inconveniences until other employment or more adequate means of transportation is in sight, though it may be concluded that extenuating circumstances exist3. Even the need to walk a few kilometers must at times be considered. Furthermore, the cost of transportation is a normal condition applicable to working people and cannot be accepted as good cause for refusing employment4.
In unusual situations, the absence of a means of transportation may amount to good cause for refusing employment5. Such was the case where the prospective employment was in a suburb to which there was no bus service and also where the claimant did not have any means of transportation for making long trips at late hours; on snowy or icy roads; or, in the case of employment as a teacher, where the worker had to travel to three different schools everyday.
The need to travel at night using a vehicle which is only in fair condition may amount to extenuating circumstances6. Unless the cost of the trip is within economical reach, a taxi is not a suitable means of transportation for travelling to work each day. Furthermore, a person is not expected to walk several kilometers in the dead of night or hitchhike7.
In areas where there is no public transportation, workers generally form car pools. A claimant without the personal use of an automobile should not conclude that there are no means of transportation before having tried in vain to find someone to travel with.
Nevertheless, the lack of transportation is never good cause for a refusal when the elapsed period of unemployment is of such length that the claimant should have considered the possibility of moving or living away from the spouse, although extenuating circumstances may be found to exist.
______________________________
- Jurisprudence Index/refusal of work/transportation difficulties/; Jurisprudence Index/availability for work/restrictions/transportation difficulties/;
- Jurisprudence Index/refusal of work/good cause/;
- Jurisprudence Index/availability for work/restrictions/transportation difficulties/;
- Jurisprudence Index/refusal of work/good cause/;
- Jurisprudence Index/availability for work/restrictions/transportation difficulties/;
- Jurisprudence Index/refusal of work/good cause/;
- Jurisprudence Index/availability for work/restrictions/geographical area/.
Moving the whole family may not be desirable, for example when the prospective employment at some distance away is only temporary. The question then is whether it is wiser to accept or refuse the offer, after considering the expenses involved in travelling and maintaining two homes.
It often happens that both husband and wife are in the labour market. Having in mind the principles applicable to voluntarily leaving employment1, it will be assumed, unless there is an indication to the contrary, that the area in which the couple resides is the one that favours the career of one of them, a decision that they have already been called upon to make and which must be respected. Acceptance of employment by the other spouse is necessarily subordinate. When by reason of such decision the latter refuses to accept work at a place so far away that the couple would have to live apart for long periods, the refusal is with good cause2. For example, regardless of the length of period of unemployment, a claimant has good cause in refusing permanent employment that would allow only seeing the other partner on weekends3. As a matter of fact, the community at large expects married people to live together on a continuing basis; if economic factors keep them apart, the situation must be exceptional and the separation of a short duration.
In some occupational fields such as the logging or shipping industry, a claimant may be required to live apart from a spouse for long periods. The same may be true for a person who has chosen to follow a specialized occupation, although here extenuating circumstances may be recognized. Further, if a couple takes up residence in an area where there are virtually no job opportunities, they must be prepared to put up with rather long separations if either of them or both intend to remain on the labour market.
______________________________
- see 6.3.3, "Obligation to Accompany a Spouse or Dependent Child to Another Residence"
- Jurisprudence Index/refusal of work/good cause/;
- Jurisprudence Index/refusal of work/distance/.
It is normal for a person to want first of all to look for work near home. A reasonable period must therefore be allowed the claimants to look for work in the area where they usually earn their living1. This period may be calculated on the basis of two weeks for each year of work2; it will be shortened to half in the case of a person who has moved from a large city to an area which offers very few employment opportunities3. Conversely, it can be lengthened considerably when a person has moved to an industrial area.
The boundaries of the area in which a person normally earns her or his living are determined by the distances that citizens living therein travel daily to get to work. For example, one who just became unemployed does not have good cause in refusing employment downtown solely because of having previously worked in another part of the city.
The factors referred to under Reasonable Period of Unemployment4 can also be applied here to shorten or lengthen the period to be allowed. Note: any one who wants to work must conform to the requirements of the labour market5. Even a retiree must not view benefits as a means of supplementing a pension while continuing to live in a hamlet.
Family obligations obviously are a factor to consider6. They are of much less importance, however, as the period of unemployment lengthens or when the claimant lives in an area where there are virtually no employment opportunities7. The free choice to refuse employment that interferes with personal commitments cannot be exercised at the expense of those who contribute to the unemployment insurance plan.
______________________________
- Jurisprudence Index/refusal of work/reasonable period of time/;
- see 10.9.4, "Moving From An Urban Area"
- see 10.9.4, "Moving From An Urban Area"
- Jurisprudence Index/refusal of work/distance/; Jurisprudence Index/availability for work/restrictions/reasonable period of time/;
- Jurisprudence Index/availability for work/restrictions/labour market information/;
- Jurisprudence Index/refusal of work/family responsibilities/;
- Jurisprudence Index/availability for work/restrictions/reasonable period of time/.
As for logging, a claimant must generally accept having to live apart from family for rather long periods of time1, but these cannot exceed the limits of what is reasonable2. Isolation that would prevent workers from visiting their family at reasonable intervals can provide good cause.
___________________________
