| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| work sharing |
scheduled vacations |
not available |
|
Summary:
On May 5, 2009, the employer entered into a work-sharing agreement with the claimant which was to remain in force until May 8, 2010. The claimants' weekly hours were reduced by 20% from his normal 37.5 hours to 30 hours per week. The work-sharing agreement required that the employer "schedule at least ½ an hour of work per week for employees in order for them to qualify for Work-Sharing Employment Insurance benefits." The claimant was not entitled to receive E.I. work-sharing benefits for the two weeks (July 26, 2009 to August 8, 2009) due to a paid scheduled vacation. The claimant had not worked the minimum required half-hour during the weeks in question. The Commission considered the claimant's application for benefits under the regular E.I. rules of eligibility instead of the work-sharing rules. Pursuant to the regular rules of eligibility, the claimant did not qualify to receive regular E.I. benefits as he was not available for work. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed by the Umpire.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| work sharing |
conditions |
minimum 1/2 hour of work |
|
Summary:
On May 5, 2009, the employer entered into a work-sharing agreement with the claimant which was to remain in force until May 8, 2010. The claimants' weekly hours were reduced by 20% from his normal 37.5 hours to 30 hours per week. The work-sharing agreement required that the employer "schedule at least ½ an hour of work per week for employees in order for them to qualify for Work-Sharing Employment Insurance benefits." The claimant was not entitled to receive E.I. work-sharing benefits for the two weeks (July 26, 2009 to August 8, 2009) due to a paid scheduled vacation. The claimant had not worked the minimum required half-hour during the weeks in question. The Commission considered the claimant's application for benefits under the regular E.I. rules of eligibility instead of the work-sharing rules. Pursuant to the regular rules of eligibility, the claimant did not qualify to receive regular E.I. benefits as he was not available for work. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed by the Umpire.
