Decision 20778
| Case Number | Claimant | Judge | Language | Decision date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Decision 20778 | Strayer | English | 1992-02-14 |
| Decision | Appealed | Appellant | Corresponding Case |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dismissed | No | N/A | - |
| Issue: | Sub-Issue 1: | Sub-Issue 2: | Sub-Issue 3: |
|---|---|---|---|
| maternity benefits | earnings |
Summary:
Vacation pay allocated over maternity period, so she lost 3 weeks of benefits. She argues that she should have been notified by the Commission of this provision, also that it is discriminatory in comparison with cases where regular benefit is delayed rather than cancelled.