| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| teaching |
casual or substitute |
applicability |
|
Summary:
FCA maintained that ss. 46.1(2) is very badly worded, a rational analysis of the terms leading to the conclusion that the claimants who, during the vacation period in question, were still under contract, were covered by subparagraph (a), particularly since their employment in teaching, regardless of the temporary and precarious nature of their contracts, was continuous and predetermined, and not casual or supply in nature within the meaning of subparagraph (b).
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| teaching |
non-teaching period |
defined |
|
Summary:
FCA maintained that ss. 46.1(2) is very badly worded, a rational analysis of the terms leading to the conclusion that the claimants who, during the vacation period in question, were still under contract, were covered by subparagraph (a), particularly since their employment in teaching, regardless of the temporary and precarious nature of their contracts, was continuous and predetermined, and not casual or supply in nature within the meaning of subparagraph (b).
