Issue:
Sub-Issue 1:
Sub-Issue 2:
Sub-Issue 3:
interruption of earnings
conditions required
Summary:
The Umpire correctly observed that claimant had to establish: (1) a layoff or separation from Labatt's; (2) 7 consecutive days without work for Labatt's; and (3) 7 consecutive days without earnings from Labatt's. [p. 4]
Issue:
Sub-Issue 1:
Sub-Issue 2:
Sub-Issue 3:
earnings
income
applicability
Summary:
Claimant was offered 3 options by the employer. Whether the result would have been different had she chosen option (b) need not be considered since, in fact, she chose option (c). [p. 5]
Issue:
Sub-Issue 1:
Sub-Issue 2:
Sub-Issue 3:
earnings
allocation
without services
Summary:
Salary or severance pay? Employed with Labatt; chose to receive one year salary over 24 months rather than termination. Amount related to salary paid at same intervals while enjoying most benefits and accruing pension. All this presumes a continuing relationship. Reg. 58(4).
Issue:
Sub-Issue 1:
Sub-Issue 2:
Sub-Issue 3:
earnings
severance pay
definition
Summary:
Claimant, an employee of Labatt's, rather than termination chose to receive one year's salary over 24 months with full benefits. Contract held to be continuing. The money paid is clearly income and earnings. It cannot be severance pay under 57(3)(f). [p.8]
Quotes CUB 5466 with approval: "I know of no rule of law to the effect that an employee who is dismissed without notice is entitled to something called severance pay." [p. 7]
