Hello all

One of those I know I ought to know the answer but don't questions.

A couple with one child. One partner works full time, gets WTC and CTC, the other partner looks after the child.

The working partner does not like his work, so is thinking of taking a new job, for a new employer, which is only 12 hours a week, obviously will loose WTC, but his new wages would be below the applicable amount, so should get JSA top up and related CTB and HB. Does reducing your hours to get JSA top up fall within Just Cause rules, would he be sanctioned. I don't know if it would make any difference but he has paid enough NI contributions to be eligable for contribution based JSA.

Many thanks

I think that he could be sanctioned, though you could argue against it.

Is there NO possibility of EITHER of them finding 4 hours work (even a paper round?) in order to retain WTC?

The sanction regime applies equally to income and contribution based JSA.

The sanction regime is set up under s.19 of the JSA Act and your client potentially falls foul of subsection (6)(b) as he "has voluntarily left such employment without just cause;". The phrase "such employment" refers back to "employment as an employed earner" in subs. (6)(a).

Your client would remain in employment as an employed earner in his new job, but I don't think subs (6)(b) can be read so as to apply only in circumstances where leaving voluntarily puts the claimant in the position of no longer being an employed earner - ie where you leave job X for job Y in the knowledge that you'll need to rely on JSA in job Y, you could well be caught by subs. (6)(b).

On the face of it, I think he'd find it difficult to show just cause, though more detail would be needed to give any informed view on this. Just cause is a tougher test than good cause. In Crewe just cause in this context was said to mean the claimant must show that leaving his job was a reasonable act in circumstances that make it just that the burden or cost of his unemployment should fall on the National Insurance Fund - Crewe was an Unemployment Benefit case, so the reference to unemployment is specific to that scheme, I think, and cannot be taken to mean that subs. (6)(b) only applies where actual unemployment results.

Someone with qualifications in graphic design currently working full time as a shelf-stacker might be able to show just cause in taking up a new job for twelve hours a week as a trainee graphic designer - but they'd probably also need to show that there was a real prospect of an increase in hours and pay if the new job worked out. Changing just 'cos you don't like the current job very much is unlikely to cut it.

Many thanks for all your help.