Decision A0373.07
Full Text of Decision A0373.07
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
compensatory leave |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant filed a claim for benefits and it was established effective October 9, 2005 and he continued to receive sick leave pay until March 10, 2006. EI benefits were paid to him from March 14 to May 8, 2006. Between March 11 and April 28, 2006, he received wage-loss payments that he refused to cash. The Umpire upheld the Commission's decision that these amounts constituted earnings under 35(2)(c)(i) of the EIR and had to be allocated pursuant to 36(12) EIR. The FCA refused to decide on this issue since, in its opinion, the Umpire committed an error in law by neglecting to enquire about whether, under the circumstances, the claimant was entitled to the benefits. If there was no interruption of earnings, the claimant was not entitled to the benefits and the Commission had no jurisdiction in this case. The Commission could not decide on the earnings and the allocation until they make sure of the claimant's entitlement to employment benefits.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
errors in law |
|
|
Decision A-0092.03
Full Text of Decision A-0092.03
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
compensatory leave |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant was disentitled because her time-off periods, every other week, were part of her work schedule. The Court determined that the claimant worked extra hours during the week and was not unemployed when she was off work due to a prearranged period of leave.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
errors in law |
|
|
Decision A-0070.02
Full Text of Decision A-0070.02
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
compensatory leave |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant was working on a four days on - four days off schedule and was disentitled from benefits as he was deemed by the Commission to have worked a full working week under section 11(4) of the EI Act. The Court concluded that s. 11(4) was not applicable because there was no evidence to support that extra hours were worked and that time-off was granted to compensate for it.
Decision A-0068.02
Full Text of Decision A-0068.02
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
compensatory leave |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant was working on a four days on - four days off schedule and was disentitled from benefits as he was deemed by the Commission to have worked a full working week under section 11(4) of the EI Act. The Court concluded that s. 11(4) was not applicable because there was no evidence to support that extra hours were worked and that time-off was granted to compensate for it.
Decision 56090
Full Text of Decision 56090
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
compensatory leave |
|
|
Summary:
Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0092.03
Decision 52217A
Full Text of Decision 52217A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
compensatory leave |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant was on a rotation of two weeks on and two weeks off. The fact that he is not paid during the period he is on leave does not mean that there is an interruption in his employment. He continues on in the rotation as prescribed by his employer and he is entitled to that time off for the extra time worked.
Decision 53077
Full Text of Decision 53077
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
compensatory leave |
|
|
Summary:
Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0070.02
Decision 53076
Full Text of Decision 53076
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
compensatory leave |
|
|
Summary:
Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0068.02
Decision 52070
Full Text of Decision 52070
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
compensatory leave |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant worked 7 consecutive days followed by 7 days of leave for a total of 49 hours every two weeks. Decided that an employee who negotiates a work schedule that gives him a set period of leave in exchange for a longer period of work cannot be considered unemployed. Reference made to FCA decision in Duguay (A-0075.95).
Decision 51853
Full Text of Decision 51853
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
compensatory leave |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant, a bus driver, has a working arrangement with another employee where they work from 48 to 60 hours in one week and are off the second week. Claimant deemed to have worked a full working week during each week that falls wholly or partly in a period of leave because of the geater number of hours worked. Decision maintained both by BOR and the Umpire.
Decision 45490
Full Text of Decision 45490
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
compensatory leave |
|
|
Summary:
Financially troubled employer decided to reorganize work schedules. Claimant, an ambulance attendant, was on call for seven 24-hour days and was required to reach the destination within 10 minutes of receiving a call. In addition, he was entitled to a $100/week wage increase. According to the Umpire, the period for which a benefit claim is made cannot be considered a week without work because of overtime worked or calls received the preceding week.
Decision 33973
Full Text of Decision 33973
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
compensatory leave |
|
|
Summary:
Material in the record supports the finding of the BOR that he worked 8 hours a day, 7 days a week, for six consecutive weeks and after each six weeks of work was entitled to two weeks off. Those facts brought the claimant squarely within subsection 10(4) of the U.I. Act.
Decision A-0074.95
Full Text of Decision A-0074.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
compensatory leave |
|
|
Summary:
NOTE: This is a case similar to that of Jocelyne Duguay (A-75-95). See that summary for details.
Decision A-0075.95
Full Text of Decision A-0075.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
compensatory leave |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant worked 59 hours every two weeks, and had one week off after each week of work. In addition, she received a bonus of $2.50 an hour for every hour worked in excess of 44 hours in a week. She and another employee worked «on a rotation basis». FCA held that the weeks off were provided for in the employment agreement as weeks of leave within the meaning of s. 10(4) of the Act, and consequently were not weeks of unemployment. **NOTE: Case A-76-95 (CUB 26683) is identical.
Decision 32221
Full Text of Decision 32221
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
compensatory leave |
|
|
Summary:
While no formal or written contract, ss.10(4) includes arrangements which though less formal than a written contract nonetheless constitute a contract by reason of the employee's acceptance of terms of employment which include longer than usual hours ofwork, followed by a period of leave from work.
Decision 32059
Full Text of Decision 32059
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
compensatory leave |
|
|
Summary:
Despite the contention that he entered into a new written contract made for each trip and then became unemployed, it was clearly understood by employee that after "2 trips on and 1 trip off" he remained an employee on a f/t basis. Hours of work in excess of hours normally worked in f/t employment.
Decision 26832
Full Text of Decision 26832
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
compensatory leave |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant initially said that she worked some 26.2 hours per week as a clerk in a hospital. She later explained that she always worked 7 nights for a total of 52.5 hours, and was off for 7 days. The job is shared with another employee. Ss. 10(4) does not refer to calendar week.
Decision 26682
Full Text of Decision 26682
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
compensatory leave |
|
|
Summary:
Employed regularly every other week. The question at issue is whether there was a work sharing agreement between the employer and the claimant. In my opinion, she was hired to work 59 hours every 2 weeks; there is no way that the other weeks can be considered periods of leave.
Decision 20606A
Full Text of Decision 20606A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
compensatory leave |
|
|
Summary:
Female employee of convenience store who, alternating with another female employee, alternately works 77 hours a week, 7 days a week, every other week. Decided that Reg. 42(4) applies. Concerns the year 1990.
Decision 25236
Full Text of Decision 25236
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
compensatory leave |
|
|
Summary:
I agree there simply is no evidence, on the record, of the purpose for the crew rotation. In the absence of that evidence, where the claimant has regularly worked a greater number of hours, days or shifts, ss. 42(4) [now 10(4)] generally applies so that he is deemed to have worked a full week.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| fishing |
lay days |
|
|
Decision 22676
Full Text of Decision 22676
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
compensatory leave |
|
|
Summary:
I have some doubt whether ss.10(4) should apply (when a person regularly works more hours) to an employee working four 12-hour days and then is off 4 days. It may be reasonable to stretch the interpretation of 10(4) by averaging out the hours of work and say they work more than 40 hours a week.
Employees of Fletcher Challenge Canada, Crofton Pulp and Paper Division, B.C., working four 12-hour days, then off 4 days, working in 8-week cycles. In addition, they are required to take additional time off at a later date, and this is referred to as a layoff.
Decision 20866
Full Text of Decision 20866
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
compensatory leave |
|
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0708.92
Decision A-0708.92
Full Text of Decision A-0708.92
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
compensatory leave |
|
|
Summary:
Ss.10(4) is a clear provision expressed in clear terms. It matters not if the collective agreement refers to lay-off, or lay days, or leave without pay, or two weeks on, two weeks off, the presumption raised by the statute covers them all, said the Umpire. FC not persuaded that the Umpire erred.**Worked for Marine Atlantic in Nfld. Entitled to 2 weeks off after completing a 2-week working period. The fact that it coincided with his lay-off is of no consequence. It is further of no consequence that as a spare worker his leave should be deemed to have occurred earlier. Upheld by FC.
Decision 21682
Full Text of Decision 21682
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
compensatory leave |
|
|
Summary:
Employed by company member of Canadian Lake Carriers Association. Laid off 17-12-88. Lay days allocated from then on. As per agreement all time-off to be completed before 1-12. Only days of leave subsequent to 1-12 are to be taken into account based on CUB 13443 and FORTIN.
When one is laid off or dimissed and is entitled to a period off work the interruption of earnings occurs after that off work period. This is no different from former provisions of reg. 37(3) and 42(4). Reg. 42(4) has merely been moved to ss.10(4) and reg. 37(3) has been amended.
Decision 21624
Full Text of Decision 21624
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
compensatory leave |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant once again suggested that the Canada Labour Code was not applicable since he was working part-time. As I review the Code, there is no doubt that it encompasses shipping and that "employee" means a person employed on board ship. No exception forpart-time employees.
Decision 21414
Full Text of Decision 21414
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
compensatory leave |
|
|
Summary:
Canada Steamship Lines Inc. According to insured, the vacation described in clause 13 of the agreement is not granted because of long hours worked. The agreement is a very good reflection of the reality of a ship manager's life and compensates them for long hours of work with a vacation.
Decision 16027B
Full Text of Decision 16027B
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
compensatory leave |
|
|
Summary:
I find the collective agreement does not provide for leave days and as such reg. 37(3) and 42(4) have no application. The allocation of time off is to be made under reg. 58(13)c) as stated by FC. In the alternative, the time off should be allocated pursuant to reg. 58(4).
Decision 16030A
Full Text of Decision 16030A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
compensatory leave |
|
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0761.90
Decision A-0761.90
Full Text of Decision A-0761.90
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
compensatory leave |
|
|
Summary:
Since the contract provides that leave days must be taken by employees before 1-12 in each year unless they are on vessels operating all year, it is only days of leave subsequent to that day that may be taken into account: FORTIN (CUB 13443, A-220-87 and A-225-87).
Decision A-0762.90
Full Text of Decision A-0762.90
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
compensatory leave |
|
|
Summary:
The East Coast and Great Lakes Shipping Employers Hours of Work Regulations provide that an employer may adopt a lay day plan. Article XVI (vacation and vacation pay) not to be construed as providing for leave days and no indirect conclusion to be drawn from XVII (leave pay).
Decision 16027A
Full Text of Decision 16027A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
compensatory leave |
|
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0762.90
Decision 20420
Full Text of Decision 20420
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
compensatory leave |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant made an arrangement with a co-worker to share the duties of bar manager and janitor, under which she worked 6 days of 8 to 10 hours in one week and was off the following week. The Board committed no legal error in holding that reg. 42(4) applied.
Decision 19780
Full Text of Decision 19780
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
compensatory leave |
|
|
Summary:
Employed as electrician in the Canadian north. Permanent on-site employees were employed under the 9 and 3 week work schedule. Claimant shared his work with a partner working 9 weeks and then taking 9 weeks off. Held that 3 of the 9 weeks off come underss.10(4). [p._7-9]
The reasoning of the Board implies that evidence of the requirement in ss.10(4) that a lay period be a result of having worked a greater number of hours than are normally worked in a week, must be found in the contract. Error of law. The actual practiceis relevant. [p._8]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
incompatible situations |
sharing employment |
|
| teaching |
availability for work |
summer months |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
meaning |
Decision 19046
Full Text of Decision 19046
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
compensatory leave |
|
|
Summary:
Member of Seafarers International Union employed with Algoma Central Railway. Canada Labour Code examined. New agreement states that employees take time off without pay. Ss.10(4) and reg. 37(3) do not say that time off must be with pay. KELLY referred to.
Decision 15357A
Full Text of Decision 15357A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
compensatory leave |
|
|
Summary:
Based on CUB 13443, claimant argues that some of the leave days were lost, those accumulated prior to the annual deadline provided in the agreement. I take an observation in KELLY to confirm that leave days are lost if leave not taken prior to the set date.
Decision 17394A
Full Text of Decision 17394A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
compensatory leave |
|
|
Summary:
Providing unemployment insurance to an employee engaged in a work schedule which might be thought of as banking weekends would amount to a form of double indemnity not available to other workers engaged full-time in more regularly scheduled employment.
It may be that the leave provision arose so that more union members could obtain work. Nevertheless, where the entitlement to leave arises for the reason that one regularly works long hours with little time off, 10(4) is applicable even though the leaveserves as job-sharing.
Decision 17036
Full Text of Decision 17036
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
compensatory leave |
|
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0456.89
Decision A-0456.89
Full Text of Decision A-0456.89
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
compensatory leave |
|
|
Summary:
The leave pay provision of the collective agreement which states that an "employee shall be paid his accumulated leave pay monthly" cannot be invoked in the application of 10(4) and 37(3) which deal with time "off work" where leave days properly belong.
Decision 18521
Full Text of Decision 18521
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
compensatory leave |
|
|
Summary:
Regular claimants employed in fishing entitled to shore time between trips. What is relevant under 10(4) is that the period off work be that to which one is entitled under contract for reason of regularly working more hours. Compensation for those periods is not a pre-condition.
It hardly needs saying that the UI scheme does not compensate an employed person for periods off work during a weekend. Ss. 10(4) has the same effect. It ensures that persons entitled to time off work pursuant to their contract would not be entitled to UI for those periods.
Decision 18522
Full Text of Decision 18522
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
compensatory leave |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant submits that although benefit may be denied for those actual days of "shore leave", he should not be deemed to have worked a full working week. Ss. 10(4) is clear and applies if claimant's shore leave falls upon a Sunday or any one or more of the following 6 days.
Fisherman entitled to "shore leave" between trips. Although he is provided with time off work, it is without wages. That is a difference between this case and many others concerning "lay days", but whether earnings are provided or not for such leave hasno bearing under 10(4).
Decision 18476
Full Text of Decision 18476
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
compensatory leave |
|
|
Summary:
What should have been determined is whether the claimant regularly worked a greater number of hours than is normal in full-time employment, whether his contract called for a period of time off and whether the former was the reason for the latter.
Assistant cook required to work 12 hours per day while at sea, 7 days a week. When he had completed 2 fishing trips he was entitled, under his contract, to a period of time off work, a period that would be equal in length to the immediately following 2 trips.
Decision 18222
Full Text of Decision 18222
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
compensatory leave |
|
|
Summary:
Cook aboard a ship who had accumulated 50 days of leave when laid off on 3-89 pursuant to a collective agreement between the Seafarers International Union of Canada and the ship owners of the St-Lawrence.
Decision A-0106.89
Full Text of Decision A-0106.89
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
compensatory leave |
|
|
Summary:
Under 37(3) and 10(4), it is clear that where, under his contract, one is owed, on his last day of work, additional periods of time off work, this time must be allocated following his last day of work. The words used do not introduce consideration of receipt of monies. [p. 17]
By reg. 37(3), when an employee has a lay-off or a separation from employment at a time when he is entitled to a period off work, the interruption of earnings will take place at the expiry of that period of time off work rather than at the time specified in reg. 37(1). [p. 16]
The Umpire erred in law in concluding that leave pay and leave day (time off) were interchangeable and allocating leave pay on the basis that "the amount of earnings is that amount of accumulated leave pay from the first day of the month when he was laid off". [p. 18]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
Decision A-0100.89
Full Text of Decision A-0100.89
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
compensatory leave |
|
|
Summary:
The collective agreement does not provide for accumulated leave but only for accumulated leave pay (XVII), for vacations and vacation pay (XVI). My reasoning here is the same as in KELLY. Article XVI was the only governing provision for the purpose of ss.10(4) and reg. 37(3). [p.25]
Decision 16034
Full Text of Decision 16034
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
compensatory leave |
|
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0287.89
Decision 16029
Full Text of Decision 16029
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
compensatory leave |
|
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0106.89
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
Decision 16027
Full Text of Decision 16027
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
compensatory leave |
|
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0100.89
Decision A-0287.89
Full Text of Decision A-0287.89
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
compensatory leave |
|
|
Summary:
The Umpire confused leave pay and leave day. The leave day provisions of the collective agreement were the only governing provisions for the purpose of applying 10(4) and 37(3). The leave pay provisions of the collective agreement are irrelevant for that purpose. [p. 32]
Decision 18046
Full Text of Decision 18046
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
compensatory leave |
|
|
Summary:
Casual worker who is paid 2.24 working days for 12 hours worked within a 24-hour period. I do not think the facts of this case can be distinguished from those in HARDING. If the day rate is a valid distinction, it is one which the Federal Court will have to make, not me.
Decision 17222
Full Text of Decision 17222
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
compensatory leave |
|
|
Summary:
Chief cook aboard a ship who, after 3 months at sea had to take one month's unpaid leave, after which he went back to work. Reg. 42(4) applies. Parties stated that this was work sharing; the Umpire found that this was a subterfuge on their part.
Decision 16926
Full Text of Decision 16926
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
compensatory leave |
|
|
Summary:
A sales clerk with Zellers and a kitchen assistant in a ward who are employed for 7 consecutive days beginning on Saturday and then go 7 days without working, that is 6 hours in one week and 36 in the other. Unemployed.
Reg. 42(4) does not apply to this situation.
Decision 16809
Full Text of Decision 16809
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
compensatory leave |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant employed 60 to 70 hours and 7 days per week every other week. In view of the clear statements both by the employer and the employee that a worksharing pattern had been put forward by the employer, this called for a clear application of reg. 42(4).
Decision A-0220.87
Full Text of Decision A-0220.87
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
compensatory leave |
|
|
Summary:
Reg. 37(3) is a modification of the general rule, the interruption of earnings will occur at a different time. When read in its context, it does not merely refer to the obvious (employee on leave) but rather to one who has a layoff when entitled to a period off work. [p. 6]
The only possible meaning of that clause in the labour agreement, "all such leave shall be completed before 1-12" is that which the Umpire gave it [p. 7], i.e. days of leave not taken by that date are lost and do not postpone the interruption of earnings [p. 13 in CUB].
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
charter |
|
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of facts |
|
Decision 15306
Full Text of Decision 15306
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
compensatory leave |
|
|
Summary:
After working the 12-day period, claimant was laid off. He received regular pay plus severance pay. Under reg. 37(3), no interruption of earnings until a 12-day period off work has elapsed after lay-off and severance pay to be allocated afterwards.
Decision A-0088.87
Full Text of Decision A-0088.87
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
compensatory leave |
|
|
Summary:
Casual who, upon lay-off, is paid monies in lieu of lay days. Nature and purpose of payment to be examined, not the time and manner. The purpose is to provide one with days off without loss of wages, so reg. 58(4) applies. [p. 6-7 from Marceau J.]
Full-time employees granted time off as per formula. Part-time or casual, due to nature of their employment, cannot take advantage of time off. Extra money paid due to their inability to accept time off under 58(4) not due to services under 58(3). [Heald J.]
Decision 14343
Full Text of Decision 14343
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
compensatory leave |
|
|
Summary:
Left due to sickness. 45 days of accrued leave. Deemed not to have an interruption of earnings under reg. 37(3). This overrides 37(1) which states "subject to this section". Deemed to work a full working week under 42(4). Reg. 58(4) prescribes the allocation of such earnings.
Decision 13181
Full Text of Decision 13181
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
compensatory leave |
|
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0088.87
Decision 13443
Full Text of Decision 13443
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
compensatory leave |
|
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0220.87
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
charter |
|
|
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
binding judgments |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of facts |
|
Decision A-0658.79
Full Text of Decision A-0658.79
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
compensatory leave |
|
|
Summary:
Helmsman worked 90 days and was then given 30 days' leave and received one week's pay. No interruption of earnings within the meaning of Reg. 37(3).
