| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
severance pay |
definition |
|
Summary:
The claimant was discharged on August 9, 2005 following a mass layoff that took place at one of the Tembec plants. On September 24, 2005 the claimant signed a document entitled "Receipt, Release and Settlement", which indicated specifically that in exchange for severance pay, the latter would agree to waive his layoff rights and terminate his employment with Tembec. The Commission allocated the severance pay in accordance with Regulation 36(9) and (10) effective from the end of employment: August 7, 2005. The Umpire, in supporting the decision of the BOR, concluded that the severance pay made out to the claimant had been paid in exchange for forfeiting layoff and reinstatement rights and that it had to be apportioned allocated as provided by Regulation 36(19)(b). The Court, unlike the BOR and the Umpires, found that the severance pay could not be merged with a payment carried out to waive a layoff right or reinstatement right while it was, in the case at hand, solely a layoff right. In federal law, reinstatement right is the right of an employee to resume work following an unjustified discharge, if the reinstatement is granted to that employee. The Umpire and the BOR incorrectly enforced the applicable legislation, namely paragraph 36(19)(b) instead of subsections 36(9) and (10) of the Regulations.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
awards |
nature of monies |
|
Summary:
The claimant was discharged on August 9, 2005 following a mass layoff that took place at one of the Tembec plants. On September 24, 2005 the claimant signed a document entitled «Receipt, Release and Settlement», which indicated specifically that in exchange for severance pay, the latter would agree to waive his layoff rights and terminate his employment with Tembec. The Commission allocated the severance pay in accordance with Regulation 36(9) and (10) effective from the end of employment: August 7, 2005. The Umpire, in supporting the decision of the BOR, concluded that the severance pay made out to the claimant had been paid in exchange for forfeiting layoff and reinstatement rights and that it had to be allocated as provided by Regulation 36(19)(b).
The Court, unlike the BOR and the Umpires, found that the severance pay could not be merged with a payment carried out to waive a layoff right or reinstatement right while it was, in the case at hand, solely a layoff right. In federal law, reinstatement right is the right of an employee to resume work following an unjustified discharge, if the reinstatement is granted to that employee. The Umpire and the BOR incorrectly enforced the applicable legislation, namely paragraph 36(19)(b) instead of subsections 36(9) and (10) of the Regulations.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
earnings |
Monies By Reason of Separation |
|
Summary:
The claimant was discharged on August 9, 2005 following a mass layoff that took place at one of the Tembec plants. On September 24, 2005 the claimant signed a document entitled "Receipt, Release and Settlement", which indicated specifically that in exchange for severance pay, the latter would agree to waive his layoff rights and terminate his employment with Tembec. The Commission allocated the severance pay in accordance with Regulation 36(9) and (10) effective from the end of employment: August 7, 2005. The Umpire, in supporting the decision of the BOR, concluded that the severance pay made out to the claimant had been paid in exchange for forfeiting layoff and reinstatement rights and that it had to be apportioned allocated as provided by Regulation 36(19)(b). The Court, unlike the BOR and the Umpires, found that the severance pay could not be merged with a payment carried out to waive a layoff right or reinstatement right while it was, in the case at hand, solely a layoff right. In federal law, reinstatement right is the right of an employee to resume work following an unjustified discharge, if the reinstatement is granted to that employee. The Umpire and the BOR incorrectly enforced the applicable legislation, namely paragraph 36(19)(b) instead of subsections 36(9) and (10) of the Regulations.
