Decision 69780
Full Text of Decision 69780
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
part-time workers |
|
Summary:
Over 19 weeks the claimant earned $4,215 or $221.84 per week. This worked out to be 62% of her normal weekly earnings of $354. Because her percentage of employment was more than 50% but not more than 70%, as provided in the table under Regulation 52(2), the claimant must be disentitled by three days per week rather than two as suggested by the claimant. See CUB 69779 where the claimant, averaging more than 40 hours a week at the time of the lock-out could not be classified as a part-time worker. See also CUB 69778: "Even if I accepted the argument that s. 52(1) of the Regulations applied, the claimant still would not be entitled to benefits as he would be excluded because his percentage of employment was 94% which meant that he was not entitled to benefits for five days of the week." All three CUBs relate to the same labour dispute.
Decision 69516
Full Text of Decision 69516
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
part-time workers |
|
Summary:
Member of the union working on-call 1 day to 40 hours per week - lost part-time employment due to lock-out. See also CUB 69517.
Decision 14184
Full Text of Decision 14184
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
part-time workers |
|
Summary:
It has also been held in the case law that not only permanent jobs are covered; full-time or part-time jobs, whether regular or temporary, are also covered.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
casual employees |
|
Decision 13040
Full Text of Decision 13040
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
part-time workers |
|
Summary:
Employed 2 evenings per week for 3 years when strike broke out.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
directly interested |
non-bargaining group |
|
Decision A-1415.84
Full Text of Decision A-1415.84
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
part-time workers |
|
Summary:
Consistently held in case law that no distinction should be made between full-time employment and part-time employment and that situation of casual workers is comparable to that of temporary workers. Upheld in FC without comment.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
definition |
|
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
casual employees |
|
Decision 68033
Full Text of Decision 68033
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
part-time workers |
Partial recovery |
Summary:
When the claimant lost her employment due to a work stoppage resulting from a labour dispute, she was on a gradual return to work status, working four hours per day - five days a week. The disability benefits she had been receiving from her employment were cut off as of the date of the lock-out. The Commission's position was that the claimant's loss of employment was not due to the claimant's health issues and that the claimant could not be considered working at a part-time employment pursuant to section 52 of the Regulations.
