Decision 21679
| Case Number | Claimant | Judge | Language | Decision date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Decision 21679 | Rouleau | English | 1992-09-23 |
| Decision | Appealed | Appellant | Corresponding Case |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dismissed | No | N/A | - |
| Issue: | Sub-Issue 1: | Sub-Issue 2: | Sub-Issue 3: |
|---|---|---|---|
| basic concepts | insurability | vacation pay |
Summary:
Has 19 insured weeks instead of 20. He argued that 3_1/2 weeks vacation pay at layoff had not been considered. The Act is quite specific with respect to vacation pay, that it does not constitute insurable weeks which would have assisted in meeting the required number of weeks.