| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
bonus |
signing contract |
|
Summary:
While the signing bonus was not paid until the week ending August 9, 1996, it was paid as a result of the labour agreement ratified on July 10, 1996. The fact that the employer was given 30 days from the date of ratification to make the payment does not negate that it is the agreement which gave rise to the payment. Distinguishing the case from Patenaude (CUB 12503), the Umpire found that all that stood between the claimant and the actual payment was a term of 30 days. A term is not a condition. It involves no uncertainty. The Commission's appeal must succeed.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
bonus |
retaining one's services |
|
Summary:
The employer stressed the fact that the entitlement to the payment was tied directly to the number of hours worked in the preceding year and hence was made in respect of services already performed by the claimant. While agreeing that the payment was tied to past performance, the Umpire noted that there was no entitlement to it when the services were performed. Rather, the payment "arises from" the agreement as it is the agreement that has created the entitlement. Commission's appeal allowed.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
transaction |
|
Summary:
Argument made that the signing bonus did not arise from a "transaction" but from the performance of prior services. The employer stressed the fact that the entitlement to the payment was tied directly to the number of hours worked in the preceding year and hence was made in respect of services already performed by the claimant. While agreeing that the payment was tied to past performance, the Umpire noted that there was no entitlement to it when the services were performed. Rather, the payment "arises from" the agreement as it is the agreement that has created the entitlement. Commission's appeal allowed.
