| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| teaching |
teaching defined |
defined |
|
Summary:
Claimant was not entitled to benefits on the ground that benefits are not payable to school teachers during a non-teaching period. Claimant's argument is that she was not employed as a teacher, she was employed as a counsellor. Umpire concluded that the whole theme is that the function of a counsellor is to instruct, communicate, counsel and educate, all of which forms part of the process of teaching. Claimant was indeed a teacher assigned to a counselling position.
