| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
conditions required |
rehired within 7 days |
|
Summary:
Last day worked 5-12, re-employed 12-12. The result is anomalous. Because he had an interruption of earnings of only 6 days he was not initially entitled to claim for benefits. [p. 2-3]
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
factual cases |
interruption of earnings |
|
Summary:
8 months involved. Last day worked 5-12, re-employed 12-12. The result is anomalous. Because he had an interruption of earnings of only 6 days he was not initially entitled to claim for benefits. [p. 2-3]
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
bonus |
retaining one's services |
|
Summary:
I am satisfied that the stand-by pay must be treated as earnings, that there was at least an oral contract. This arose out of his employment. Under reg. 58(4), these earnings must be allocated to the period of stand-by. [p. 4-5]
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
Summary:
If there is an unfairness, it arises from the provisions of the Act and Regulations which neither the Board of Referees nor an Umpire can alter. [p. 5]
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
not a ground of entitlement |
|
Summary:
Whether the Commission should have warned him of the 7 days required for an interruption of earnings, the clear provisions of the legislation cannot be overridden by failure in the Commission, if such there was, to communicate those provisions to all potential claimants. [p. 5]
