One of the more common reasons an employee (especially a female employee) would be forced to resign from her employment is taking care of her children. Generally, the necessity for caring for one’s children constitutes “good cause” for voluntarily leaving work, where the employee would be entitled to unemployment benefits (Precedent Decision P-B-256).
The two most common issues that are contested in these types of claims are:
(a) Was the employee able to arrange for someone else to look after her children, and did she put any effort into doing it before resigning from her job? While, the employee might not be obligated to hire childcare, if she lives with a spouse, a relative or an older child, she should at least be able to explain why having one of those individuals take care of her child while she is at work is not an option.
(b) Did the employer have an established leave policy that the employee could have and should have taken advantage instead of resigning? Generally, good cause for leaving work is negated by failure to secure a leave of absence only in those cases where the claimant was (a) offered a leave of absence, (2) knew of an established leave of absence policy or should have known of such policy (3) and in addition an effort to maintain the employer–employee relationship appeared reasonable in the circumstances.
In the above-referenced Precedent Decision P-B-256, the employee was found to be eligible for benefits, because she informed her supervisor fully of her circumstances (her mother, who was taking care of her children, become confined to bed due to terminal illness). However, no leave of absence was offered at the time the claimant announced that she didn’t have a choice but resign from her position.
For more details about the law governing unemployment benefits when an employee resigns to take care of a child, you can also read the full text of Precedent Decision 256 .