Decision A-0067.02
Full Text of Decision A-0067.02
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
by reason of lay-off or separation |
|
Summary:
The claimants, who are college teachers, received a vacation pay which was allocated by the Commission to a period starting from the week of separation, in accordance with s. 36(9) of the EI Regulations. The Court concluded that, as in the Gauthier case (A-1232.92), they had to rely on the collective agreement, which did not set out that vacation pay be paid at the same time as the salary or as a part thereof.
Decision 53070
Full Text of Decision 53070
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
by reason of lay-off or separation |
|
Summary:
Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0067.02
Decision A-0049.96
Full Text of Decision A-0049.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
by reason of lay-off or separation |
|
Summary:
Pursuant to the Regulations, the claimant was prevented from receiving benefits for the week following his termination of employment due to the receipt of a vacation pay of $424. Claimant argued that he was not on vacation the week following his dismissal and that his vacation pay should be deemed to have been received the next time he takes a vacation from employment. Umpire found no merit in the claimant's submission and held that the clear wording of the Regulations had the effect of requiring the Commission to allocate the claimant's vacation pay as it had done. Position upheld by FCA.
Decision 26450
Full Text of Decision 26450
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
by reason of lay-off or separation |
|
Summary:
This situation (arrangements made to receive vacation pay biweekly not carried out by employer) is of no help to claimant. The regulations make it quite clear that under any circumstance, the vacation pay allocated on termination constitutes earnings properly allocable as per the standard formula.
Decision A-0217.93
Full Text of Decision A-0217.93
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
by reason of lay-off or separation |
|
Summary:
The 4% vacation pay, payable every 15 weeks pursuant to the work contract, was not paid. Total amount received after 37 weeks upon termination. The amount due and payable (re the first 30 weeks) prior to the termination was not allocated by reason of the layoff. The balance was paid.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
by reason of separation |
|
Decision 20723A
Full Text of Decision 20723A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
by reason of lay-off or separation |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0217.93
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
by reason of separation |
|
Decision 22370
Full Text of Decision 22370
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
by reason of lay-off or separation |
|
Summary:
What caused the vacation pay to be paid (on 31-1-90) was the upcoming mine closure, the resulting lay-off (on 31-3-90) of claimant, and the Closure Agreement. The monies were paid in contemplation of, by reason of, or with a view to the upcoming closure. Properly allocated from 31-3-90 under 58(9).
Decision 22286
Full Text of Decision 22286
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
by reason of lay-off or separation |
|
Summary:
On strike 4-10-89. Final offer made by company not accepted 3-11-89. The Company gave a 120-day notice (minimum required by law) that operations would cease 26-2-90. Employees did not return. No evidence that the Board erred: vacation pay paid in 6-90 allocated from 3-11-89 rather than 26-2-90.
Decision 21691
Full Text of Decision 21691
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
by reason of lay-off or separation |
|
Summary:
Plant closure to take place in August. Vacation pay paid in July. I am satisfied that the vacation pay paid in July was "paid by reason of a lay-off". It is the reason for the payment, not its precise date, which is pertinent. Misinformation by a CEIC employee cannot alter this.
Decision 19853
Full Text of Decision 19853
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
by reason of lay-off or separation |
|
Summary:
Requested his vacation pay 2 weeks before termination so as to avoid a deduction from UI but he only received it after. Money actually paid in respect of separation. Otherwise, one would be able to avoid reg. 58(13)(b) simply by requesting his vacation pay a week earlier.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
layoff or separation |
definition |
|
Decision 19759
Full Text of Decision 19759
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
by reason of lay-off or separation |
|
Summary:
Worked under 3 successive limited term contracts. Vacation pay payable at completion of contract. Employer's practice to defer payment if not requested and employee reappointed. Monies held to be paid or payable under reg. 58(13)(b) in respect of layoffafter the 3rd contract.
Decision 19576
Full Text of Decision 19576
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
by reason of lay-off or separation |
|
Summary:
Initially, a shutdown had been planned for the last week in 12-89 and employees were strongly urged to schedule vacations during that time. However, employees were laid off 10-12 for 3 weeks and monies paid upon layoff. PREUSCHE & McMASTER examined. Paid by reason of layoff.
Decision 19490
Full Text of Decision 19490
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
by reason of lay-off or separation |
|
Summary:
Even if I accepted that the employer should have waited until 1-90 and not pay vacation pay on layoff in 11-89, the date of receipt is not material. The money, even if not received on layoff, would have been "payable" in the future in respect of a layoff. 58(13)(b) would apply.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
income |
paid or payable |
|
Decision 18478
Full Text of Decision 18478
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
by reason of lay-off or separation |
|
Summary:
Vacation pay paid upon layoff allocated from last day worked under 58(13)(b). Once vacation pay becomes payable or is paid the amount is characterized as earnings and allocated under reg. 58. The fact that the claimant is unemployed and not on vacation is irrelevant.
Decision 17516
Full Text of Decision 17516
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
by reason of lay-off or separation |
|
Summary:
The main issue is the carrying forward of 2 weeks of vacation pay from the previous year. According to reg. 58(13)(b), when the vacation pay was earned is of no consequence; it is allocated from the date the employment ceases.
Decision 17526
Full Text of Decision 17526
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
by reason of lay-off or separation |
|
Summary:
Claimant argues the monies should have been allocated between 5-7 and 13-9 when, having been laid off, he went on vacation. The amount was payable in respect of his layoff on 25-12, not in respect of any specific vacation period. Clearly governed by reg. 58(13)(b).
Decision 17492
Full Text of Decision 17492
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
by reason of lay-off or separation |
|
Summary:
It is argued that monies must be allocated in 1987 because she paid income tax in that year. Also feels penalized because she did not take a vacation in 1987. She is right but it does not assist her appeal. Reg. 58(13) provides specifically for the allocation of vacation pay.
Decision 17417
Full Text of Decision 17417
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
by reason of lay-off or separation |
|
Summary:
Where vacation pay is not paid in respect of a specific period and is paid in respect of separation from employment, the sum must be allocated beginning with the week of separation. Argument that the allocation should be limited to vacation not taken incurrent year dismissed.
Decision 15501
Full Text of Decision 15501
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
by reason of lay-off or separation |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0923.88
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
charter |
|
|
| interruption of earnings |
charter |
|
|
| earnings |
vacation pay |
trust fund |
|
Decision A-0923.88
Full Text of Decision A-0923.88
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
by reason of lay-off or separation |
|
Summary:
On separation from employment, the claimant received 65 days of accumulated vacation pay. This sum was allocated under ss. 58(9) to weeks following separation and claimant could not prove that there was an interruption of earnings.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
charter |
|
|
| interruption of earnings |
charter |
|
|
| earnings |
vacation pay |
trust fund |
|
Decision 17196
Full Text of Decision 17196
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
by reason of lay-off or separation |
|
Summary:
According to employer, claimant took her vacation in 7-88. She received no salary or vacation pay at that time. Firm dissolved in 12-87 and claimant was accordingly laid off. That is when she was paid her vacation pay. Reg. 58(13)(b) is perfectly applicable.
Decision 17085
Full Text of Decision 17085
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
by reason of lay-off or separation |
|
Summary:
The Board held that the claimant's inability to take holidays in 9-85 was due to extenuating circumstances and vacation pay paid upon layoff in 10-86 should be allocated to this period. Error in law. Monies received as a result of layoff to be allocatedunder reg. 58(13)(b).
Decision 14485A
Full Text of Decision 14485A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
by reason of lay-off or separation |
|
Summary:
Since he was entitled to three weeks vacation at the time of the layoff, the insured believes that the amount of $228 should have been spread over 3 weeks instead of only one. This argument is without merit pursuant to Reg. 58(13)b).
Decision 16436
Full Text of Decision 16436
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
by reason of lay-off or separation |
|
Summary:
Claimant argues that he received his vacation pay 4 days before he retired, so it was not paid in respect of termination. But it was clearly paid in contemplation of his termination under the collective agreement. Vacation pay is to be allocated under 58(13)(b).
Decision A-1194.87
Full Text of Decision A-1194.87
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
by reason of lay-off or separation |
|
Summary:
Vacation pay allocated to a laid off employee at the time active employees were paid just prior to the vacation shutdown, was not paid "in respect of his severance" under 57(3)(h) in the sense of "in consequence of" or in the sense of severance being the cause of the payment.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
change of wording |
|
Decision 14859
Full Text of Decision 14859
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
by reason of lay-off or separation |
|
Summary:
Reg. 58(13)(b) was designed to have vacation pay allocated to a period of time following separation in proportion to the amount claimant would have earned had he worked. Overtime pay for earlier days of the week does not reduce the amount of vacation pay allocatable to that week.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
adjournment of hearing |
|
| earnings |
wages or salary |
designated holidays |
|
| earnings |
wages or salary |
overtime |
|
| earnings |
allocation |
normal weekly earnings |
overtime |
Decision 14698
Full Text of Decision 14698
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
by reason of lay-off or separation |
|
Summary:
Received on termination 4% of wages as vacation pay which was allocated to the 2 following weeks. Under reg. 57(2)(a) and 58(13) this is income arising out of employment. For all purposes related to payment of benefit, it is earnings. Properly allocatedunder 58(13)(b).
Decision 14666
Full Text of Decision 14666
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
by reason of lay-off or separation |
|
Summary:
Vacation pay paid just prior to layoff. In interpreting "in respect of" in reg. 58(13)(b), one should have regard to the real cause for the payment. He was entitled to claim vacation pay because he was about to be laid off. Otherwise he would have had the option of a vacation.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
in any other case |
|
Decision 13668
Full Text of Decision 13668
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
by reason of lay-off or separation |
|
Summary:
Received $1,484 in 2-86 at time of termination, which included $865 for vacation not taken in summer of 85. Total amount must be counted and allocated under 58(13)(b).
Decision 13392
Full Text of Decision 13392
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
by reason of lay-off or separation |
|
Summary:
Paid in contemplation of termination. Allocation is governed by reg. 58(13)(b). It does not matter when the vacation pay was earned. What caused the vacation pay to be immediately payable (rather than during vacation in July) obviously was the lay-off.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
income |
paid into rrsp |
|
Decision 12948
Full Text of Decision 12948
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
by reason of lay-off or separation |
|
Summary:
Vacation pay earned in 1984 and 1985 paid upon separation in 8-85. The Board found that the 1984 vacation pay came under reg. 58(18). It is earnings to which reg. 58(8) applies, so reg. 58(18) cannot apply.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
applicability |
|
Decision 12841
Full Text of Decision 12841
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
by reason of lay-off or separation |
|
Summary:
Laid off in 1-85 but continued to work on an on-call basis while collecting UI. Vacation pay paid in 6-85. It is clear that the allocation is not to be made under 58(13)(b) since there has been no lay-off or separation. Worked in weeks of 2, 9 and 16-6.
Decision 68079
Full Text of Decision 68079
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
by reason of lay-off or separation |
During Parental Benefits |
Summary:
While in receipt of parental benefits, the claimant decided to accept another employment. The employer terminated the claimant's employment and paid him his vacation pay of $2,873.52, which was allocated from the date of the termination of employment. The claimant stated that his vacation pay was to cover the holidays he would be taking next summer and argued that the vacation pay he was paid due to his change of employment should not affect his parental leave benefits.
