| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
lay days * |
|
|
Summary:
The Commission determined that the claimant has not been unemployed since his time-off periods were part of his work schedule and imposed a disentitlement. The employer had confirmed that all employees work a schedule of 21 days on, followed by seven days off, except the claimant, who worked a schedule of 21 days on, followed by 21 days off. His employer explained to him that there was not enough work for him to have the same schedule as the other employees. The claimant stated that it was not fair that he was not entitled to benefits because his periods of leave were longer than those of his co-workers and that given the tax that was deducted from his earnings and the cost of airfare to return to his family during his periods of time, he was earning only $330.00 a week. The Board of Referees finds that the claimant had to accept the company's conditions in order to keep his job and that he agreed to do work sharing. The appeal by the Commission is allowed by the Umpire.
