| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| teaching |
casual or substitute |
applicability |
|
Summary:
Umpire concluded that, in this case, paragraph 46.1(2)(b) applied because the claimant was not paid during the non-teaching period and, although there was a teaching contract, it was for casual and substitute work. Umpire allowed the claimant’s appeal regarding her entitlement to benefits for the non-teaching periods. **Commission decided to pursue an appeal before the FCA, which agreed that Umpire had erred in law. Umpire’s decision was not consistent with the jurisprudence established in this regard.
