Decision 23306

Summary:

The argument that because the school year is defined as being from 1-7 of one year to 30-6 the following year, one who is hired from 1-9 through 30-6 has been hired for a school year. It is neither a logical nor a correct way to incorporate by reference the terms of the School Act into claimant's contract. Claimant's contract from 23-3-92 terminated 30-6-92. On 29-6-92 he signed a part-time contract with the same School Board effective 1-9-92 through to 30-6-93. Not hired for the school year as commencing 1-7-92 under the B.C. Act but effective 1-9-92.

---

Summary:

Casual is not defined in the UI Regulations and is not used in the B.C. School Act. Claimant's employment from 23-3-92 to 30-6-92 was of a temporary and indefinite nature. It involved filling an unexpected or temporary absence for a potential 3-month period. It could be cancelled at any time. It seems clear that it is not equivalent to substitute teaching. The Commission argues that casual and substitute are synonymous concepts. I do not think two different words would have been used if only one category was intended.

---

Summary:

Worked as substitute from 22-10-91 to 23-3-92 and as casual from 23-3-92 to 30-6-92. The issue is whether claimant's employment from 23-3-92 to 30-6-92 was casual. If it was casual then claimant is entitled to benefits; if it was not, then he is not entitled to benefits.

---

Summary:

It seems clear that casual teaching is not equivalent to substitute teaching. The Commission argues that casual and substitute are synonymous concepts. I do not think two different words would have been used if only one category was intended.

---