| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
lay days * |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant filed a benefit claim, established effective November 19, 2006. The Commission subsequently determined that the claimant was not unemployed during the period for which she was claiming benefits because the period of leave constituted part of her work schedule. The Commission imposed a disentitlement for the period between January 28 and June 23, 2007 which resulted in an overpayment. The employer indicated that a number of its employees, including the claimant, worked six or seven days a week between 5 a.m. and 5 p.m., performing very physically demanding tasks. That is why a schedule of one week of work followed by one week of leave was set up; it enabled employees to recover after a long week. The employer added that employees agreed to the schedule when they were hired. The appeal is dismissed.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
conditions required |
7 days without work |
|
Summary:
The claimant filed a benefit claim, established effective November 19, 2006. The Commission subsequently determined that the claimant was not unemployed during the period for which she was claiming benefits because the period of leave constituted part of her work schedule. The Commission imposed a disentitlement for the period of January 28 to June 23, 2007 which resulted in an overpayment. The employer indicated that a number of its employees, including the claimant, worked six or seven days a week between 5 a.m. and 5 p.m., performing very physically demanding tasks. That is why a schedule of one week of work followed by one week of leave was set up; it enabled employees to recover after a long week. The appeal is dismissed.
