Archived - Digest of Benefit Entitlement Principles Chapter 10 - Section 7

This page has been archived on the Web

Information identified as archived is provided for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please contact us to request a format other than those available.

10.7.0 Hours of work: family obligations and religious beliefs

Hours of work that may be available to workers, vary greatly in the labour market. Depending on the industry, demand for the employer’s product or service, type of occupation, geographical location and season of the year, employers may require full time or part time workers, as well as workers to work evenings, nights, shift work, inconvenient or long hours, or overtime. Faced with a period of unemployment, claimants are expected to demonstrate flexibility by being willing to accept the hours of work that are available in the labour market.

10.7.1 The legislative requirements

The legislative requirements in relation to availability for work are directly linked to the description of "suitable employment" (10.1.0 "Authority"). The legislation provides specific criteria to consider in determining what constitutes suitable employment, including a specific criterion in relation to hours of work:

"the hours of work are not incompatible with the claimant’s family obligations or religious beliefs".

Consequently, and with a few exceptions, all hours of employment are considered suitable, given the description in the legislation. Generally, in order for claimants to prove that they are available for work, they must be willing to seek and accept all hours of work that are available to them in the labour market.

In order to avoid any incompatible situations and to establish their availability for work, claimants are expected to make every effort to free themselves of barriers to accepting work, such as family obligations and other personal responsibilities, so that they are able to seek and accept the hours of work that are available in the labour market. Notwithstanding a claimant’s unwillingness to work certain hours or days of the week because of their religious beliefs, the claimant must still be available for all other hours of work. In some instances it may be possible for claimants to make arrangements with employers to adjust the hours of work in order to accommodate the claimant’s family obligations, personal responsibilities or religious beliefs.

Claimants who have not attempted to make arrangements to free themselves of family obligations or other personal responsibilities to allow them to seek and accept all available hours of work, may not be able to prove that they are available for work.

10.7.2 Hours of work: a fixed criterion

There is no reference in the legislation to hours of work in relation to a claimant’s previous pattern of work in the qualifying period. In addition, the criteria related to hours of work, in the legislation, has no specific time frame provision or flexibility for the duration of the claimant’s benefit period.

Consequently, notwithstanding any pattern of work in the qualifying period, claimants are, from the beginning of their claim for benefit, not allowed to restrict their willingness to work to certain hours of work. Rather, from the beginning of their claim they are obligated to be available for, and must seek and accept, all hours of work that are available in the labour market, including full-time, part-time, evenings, nights and shift work, as well as work that may involve inconvenient or long hours, or overtime. If a claimant does not meet these requirements, they may be subject to a disentitlement from benefits for non-availability.

10.7.3 Application

What must be examined are the claimant’s individual circumstances. Is the claimant avoiding otherwise suitable employment because of an unwillingness to work certain hours? If so, a disentitlement may be in order.

For example, a claimant seeking work as an accountant or high school teacher would not be avoiding suitable employment if they are unwilling to work evenings, where there are no opportunities for such work in the evenings.

A claimant who is seeking work as a nurse as well as work in similar occupations who is unwilling to work at night for personal reasons, could be considered to be avoiding suitable employment by imposing such a restriction. A disentitlement for non-availability could be in order, in this scenario. However, if such a claimant has family obligations that are in fact incompatible with working at night, then nightshift work would not be suitable, and the claimant would not be obligated to seek or accept such work. The onus of proving availability is on the claimant. Therefore, in order to be considered available for work the claimant would need to establish that they are available for work in the labour market under conditions that afford reasonable opportunities for re-employment. As such the claimant would need to be available for work as a nurse and in other occupations outside of nightshift work.

A claimant who was previously employed as a teacher and who is now seeking work as a teacher, as well as any other occupation in which they are qualified to work, would be considered unavailable for suitable employment if they are unwilling to work mornings. A disentitlement for non-availability could be in order for imposing such a restriction. However, if this claimant can prove that they have family obligations that are in fact "incompatible" with working mornings, then hours of work available in the morning would not be suitable, and the claimant would not be obligated to either seek or accept such work. In order to be considered available for work, the claimant would need to establish that they are available for work in the labour market under conditions that afford reasonable opportunities for re-employment. As such the claimant would need to be available for work as a teacher and in other occupations during hours other than mornings.

Each of these cases must be examined on its own merits. What must be considered is whether the claimant is placing a restriction on their availability, or if they simply prefer certain hours, and the extent to which the claimant’s family responsibilities are in fact incompatible with certain hours of work. Labour market information should be considered in these cases, particularly if the evidence is unclear as to the availability of suitable employment during certain hours. This will assist in deciding if the claimant is avoiding suitable employment by restricting their hours of work, or if the conditions under which the claimant is willing to work afford reasonable opportunities for re-employment.

Employment Insurance Act 6(4)

[ July 2016 ]

[ January 2014 ]

[ July 2013 ]

10.7.4 Part-time availability

10.7.4.1 Not available for a working day

Claimants requesting regular benefits who are unwilling or unable to accept any work on certain working days of the week (as opposed to just hours) because of family obligations, personal responsibilities or other circumstances may be subject to a disentitlement for non-availability.

For example, a person claiming regular benefits may be obligated to care for a family member on a Thursday and Friday for a week or two, and is unable to make arrangements to free themselves from those obligations. The basic availability requirements of the legislation require that the claimant be available for work on every working day from Monday to Friday. Consequently, this claimant may be disentitled for non-availability for those days. However, should the condition no longer be temporary and continue beyond that short period, an indefinite disentitlement would apply until they are able to free themselves of those family obligations and are able to accept work. As previously stated, each case must be examined on its own merits.

In addition, the claimant may also be subject to a seven to twelve week disqualification if he fail to apply for, accept, or take advantage of an otherwise suitable employment opportunity that involves working on a Thursday or Friday (Digest 9.1.0).

A claimant who has received less than the maximum 15 weeks of sickness benefits may not be able to establish their entitlement to regular benefits for all 5 working days in that week. For example, a claimant who has received less than 15 weeks of sickness benefits may recover to the extent that they can now work, but for only 3 days a week. If the claimant has established that they have met the conditions of entitlement to sickness benefits for the other 2 days of the week, they would not be entitled to regular benefits but would be entitled to their remaining weeks of sickness benefits, up to a maximum of 15 weeks in their benefit period (Chapter 11 "Sickness benefits").

A claimant who has received the maximum 15 weeks of sickness benefits but has recovered to the extent that they can now work, but for only 3 days per week, would be subject to a disentitlement for the other 2 days they are incapable of working each week.

Before considering a disentitlement for only part of a week the underlying condition as to why the claimant is avoiding suitable employment must be examined in detail. A disentitlement for only part of the week would be appropriate only when the underlying condition is not continuing and availability for work has clearly been established for the other working days of the week. In many situations the underlying condition that led to the claimant avoiding suitable employment is continuing, in which case an indefinite disentitlement would be appropriate. As mentioned above a claimant who does not have child care arrangements in place for two of the five working days each week is subject to an indefinite disentitlement as this is a self-imposed restriction which affects their overall availability for work and likelihood of finding suitable employment.

Claimants attending non-referred courses of instruction may also claim they are available for work on days they do not attend classes. The underlying condition that led to the non-availability, i.e., the claimant’s attendance at a course of instruction, continues even though the claimant may not be attending classes on a particular day; in fact, it continues until the course is either completed or abandoned. Consequently, these situations must first be examined in light of the principles in Digest 10.13 "Courses of instruction". Claimants must rebut a strong presumption of non-availability when they are taking non-referred courses (Digest 10.13.2.5 "Presumption of non-availability"). Attendance at classes is only one of many factors that must be examined (Digest 10.13.2.6 "Factors to consider" and 10.13.2.8 "Hours of work" ). If the claimant has not completed or abandoned the course the disentitlement for non-availability will be for the entire week even though the claimant may not have attended classes on one or more days that week. In addition, claimants who refuse to apply for, accept, or take advantage of a suitable employment opportunity because of attendance at a non-referred course of instruction may be subject to a seven to twelve week disqualification (Digest 9.6.6 "Courses of instruction").

[ January 2014 ]

10.7.4.2 Available for each working day but not full-time

Claimants who are available for work every day from Monday to Friday, but on less than a full time basis, are subject to the same conditions. Notwithstanding any pattern of work in the qualifying period, and with only a few exceptions, claimants are, from the beginning of their benefit period, not allowed to restrict their willingness to work, to certain hours of the day. Again what must be examined is whether or not the claimant is avoiding otherwise suitable employment by restricting the hours they are willing to work to something less than a full day of work. A disentitlement for part of a working day is not possible under the legislation. Consequently, if claimants are avoiding otherwise suitable employment because they are not available for full time work, a disentitlement for non-availability may be appropriate for the entire week.

For example, a claimant is restricting to part time work, mornings each day (Monday to Friday). If this is an actual restriction or if there is a lack of effort on the claimant’s part to look for and accept other hours of work, and there is a strong likelihood that otherwise suitable employment opportunities would be available during other hours of the day, the claimant would not be considered available for work, and a disentitlement for the entire week may be appropriate.

[ July 2013 ]

10.7.5 Exceptions

A claimant who is not available for work on a Saturday or Sunday because of family obligations or their religious beliefs, but is still available for work from Monday to Friday, is considered available pursuant to the legislation, and is therefore not subject to any disentitlement.

In addition, the legislation allows a claimant to be paid benefits for a working day in a benefit period, if the claimant proves they are "unable to work because of a prescribed illness, injury or quarantine". Consequently, if a claimant is unable to work for one of those reasons on one or more of the working days between Monday and Friday, the claimant may still be entitled to benefits for those days. More information on this subject is available in Chapter 11 of this Digest of Entitlement Principles.

[ January 2014 ]

10.7.6 Presently employed part-time

As a general rule, working part-time while receiving benefits should not be seen as an obstacle to full-time availability for work since the acceptance of any type of employment is the best evidence that can be used to prove availability. The fact that a claimant is working part time does not necessarily mean they are imposing an undue restriction on their availability. Rather, the acceptance of an offer of part time work usually indicates the person is in fact available for work, at least to the extent required by the job. Nevertheless, the three following situations should be distinguished:

  1. the claimant considers part-time employment sufficient and would be unwilling to work more hours or days per week;
  2. the claimant is prepared to leave the current part-time job to accept a full-time position;
  3. the claimant is limiting availability to a second part-time job which, with the current one, would amount to a full work week.

In the first case, the claimant is considered to be employed to the fullest extent of their availability and is avoiding other suitable employment, therefore, a disentitlement would apply for the entire week.

In the second case the claimant’s willingness to abandon their part time employment in favour of full time work, establishes the claimant’s availability for work in general. However, the claimant could be asked to provide proof that they are making reasonable and customary efforts to obtain suitable full time employment.

In the third case the claimant cannot avoid otherwise suitable employment, because it is full time. Assuming there is suitable full time employment in the labour market for the claimant, a disentitlement for non-availability would be appropriate if the claimant insists on such a restriction.

However, claimants who refuse to accept a full-time job may still be able to prove they are available for work, if they have good reasons to believe their current job will become full-time in the near future. Each case must be examined based on its individual circumstances.

[ July 2016 ]

Report a problem or mistake on this page
Please select all that apply:

Thank you for your help!

You will not receive a reply. For enquiries, contact us.

Date modified: