| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
charter |
|
|
Summary:
Working hours reduced from 32 to 4 a week. 7-day requirement without work nor earnings not met. Ss. 37(1) is valid. Para. 44(r) is quite explicit in authorizing to define and determine "when". "Has or will have" not designed to delay occurrence of layoff or separation.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
conditions required |
|
|
Summary:
The definition of interruption of earnings involves 3 distinct possibilities. These are: "when after a period of employment with an employer" (a) one has a layoff, (b) has a separation from that employment, or (c) is given a reduction in hours for that employer as prescribed.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
conditions required |
reduction in hours |
|
Summary:
Working hours reduced from 32 to 4 a week. 7-day requirement without work nor earnings not met. Ss. 37(1) is valid.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
layoff or separation |
definition |
|
Summary:
Dictionary definitions of layoff do not apply to 2(1). When that context is fully appreciated it may be seen that by utilizing "layoff" and "separation from employment", Parliament did not intend that either should embrace a reduction in working hours such as here.
