Decision 67758
Full Text of Decision 67758
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
bonus |
Company Performance |
|
Summary:
There was no connection between payment of the bonus and the services performed by the claimant. The bonus was related solely to the company's overall performance, and the employer had complete discretion over whether to pay the bonus. I am therefore of the opinion that subsection 36(4) of the Regulations cannot apply in this case. I am also of the opinion that the other subsections between subsections 36(1) and (18) cannot apply to the allocation of the bonus in question. Subsection 36(19) must therefore apply.
Decision A-0704.99
Full Text of Decision A-0704.99
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
bonus |
cost-of-living |
|
Summary:
In light of the wording in the collective agreement, the FCA allowed the claimant's appeal. The FCA found that the payment of the isolation premium was continued because of a pregnancy and that, consequently, it should not be considered earnings that come under supplementary unemployment benefits. The Commission did not appeal this decision to the Supreme Court.
Decision 46068
Full Text of Decision 46068
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
bonus |
cost-of-living |
|
Summary:
Claimant on maternity leave received supplemental unemployment benefits (SUBs) and isolation pay of $183. The Commission treated the isolation pay as earnings, but BOR declared it to be a SUB. This was an error of law according to the Umpire. The isolation pay was not paid because of the maternity leave but pursuant to a clause of the collective agreement.
Decision 24964
Full Text of Decision 24964
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
bonus |
cost-of-living |
|
Summary:
Claimant in receipt of a "settlement and accommodation allowance" from her employer, the Government of the Northwest Territories, while on maternity leave.
Decision 11083
Full Text of Decision 11083
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
bonus |
cost-of-living |
|
Summary:
Claimant, a resident of N.W.T., continued to receive accommodation allowance or northern benefits during maternity leave. The tax-free aspect of it does not necessarily mean non-insurable earnings. Not an allowance for expenses and not a relief grant.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| maternity benefits |
earnings |
|
|
| earnings |
relief grants |
|
|
| earnings |
income |
elected or appointed representative |
|
Decision 21782
Full Text of Decision 21782
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
bonus |
in lieu of wage increase |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-1414.92
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
without services |
|
Decision A-1414.92
Full Text of Decision A-1414.92
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
bonus |
in lieu of wage increase |
|
Summary:
Instead of awarding employees a wage increase, the company paid them a lump sum payment each year based on hours worked the preceding year. First payment made in 1-91. Claimant laid off 8-2-91. Monies to be allocated under 58(18)(b), and not under 58(4) to every week in 1991. Upheld by FC.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
without services |
|
Decision 14653
Full Text of Decision 14653
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
bonus |
insurance premiums |
|
Summary:
Premiums for a continuation of life and dental insurance received in cash. Retroactive allocation. Claimant produced evidence that he in fact bought insurance with the money, so money went to the very same purpose as if employer had retained it.
Decision 14645
Full Text of Decision 14645
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
bonus |
insurance premiums |
|
Summary:
Company agreed to pay premiums for a continuation of life and dental insurance for 2 years. Upon termination, claimant had option of taking cash value; this he did. Monies come under 58(9) and (10) as "other monies received".
Decision A-0258.79
Full Text of Decision A-0258.79
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
bonus |
recalling one to work |
|
Summary:
Difference between salary and UI paid by Simon Fraser University in B.C. following maternity leave. Because of the requirement for return to work and the object was to encourage return to work, the monies were properly allocated to the periods after claimant returned to work. In this case as well, the entitlement to the reimbursement arises upon return to work. As return to work is a condition precedent to payment, Hawkins applies. Return to work was a mere condition to which was subordinated claimant's right to be compensated for her maternity leave. This does not alter the fact that the payment was for the period of the leave.**NOTE: the same situation applies in the case of Amy S. Yu (A-0256.79) and Marie Susan Buchmann (A-0257.79).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
wage-loss indemnity |
maternity |
|
Decision A-0256.79
Full Text of Decision A-0256.79
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
bonus |
recalling one to work |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under the identical FCA case in Hawkins (A-0258.79, CUB 05512).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
wage-loss indemnity |
maternity |
|
Decision 73014
Full Text of Decision 73014
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
bonus |
retaining one's services |
|
Summary:
The last day of work at that company was May 2008. The claimant was paid vacation pay, a severance pay and a retention bonus pay. The company itself referred to these monies as a retention bonus that would be payable to the employees who remained on the job until their services would no longer be required. It was clearly stated as not being a production bonus but being a retention bonus. In those circumstances, the monies paid to the claimant are subject to allocation under sections 35 and 36 of the EI Act. The appeal of the Commission is allowed by the Umpire.
Decision 55953
Full Text of Decision 55953
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
bonus |
retaining one's services |
|
Summary:
Claimant's contention is that the incentive bonus was received as a gift. Held that the bonus clearly constituted income arising out of employment. It was only by virtue of the fact that claimant was employed by TimberWest that he was entitled to the bonus money. It was earned income for having achieved the objectives of the Incentive Plan.
Decision 41845
Full Text of Decision 41845
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
bonus |
retaining one's services |
|
Summary:
The employer stressed the fact that the entitlement to the payment was tied directly to the number of hours worked in the preceding year and hence was made in respect of services already performed by the claimant. While agreeing that the payment was tied to past performance, the Umpire noted that there was no entitlement to it when the services were performed. Rather, the payment "arises from" the agreement as it is the agreement that has created the entitlement. Commission's appeal allowed.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
bonus |
signing contract |
|
| earnings |
allocation |
transaction |
|
Decision 26019
Full Text of Decision 26019
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
bonus |
retaining one's services |
|
Summary:
Recognition bonus, not covered in the agreement, paid to maintain the level of quality. I am convinced that the bonus cannot be dissociated from the plant closing. Had the plant's operations not terminated, the bonus would not have been created. Allocation according to s. 58(9) of the Regulations.
Decision 24516
Full Text of Decision 24516
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
bonus |
retaining one's services |
|
Summary:
Held, while relying on WARREN, GUILBAULT and CUBs 23049 and 21043, that the $100,000. bonus shared by the employees who remained at work until they were laid off due to plant closure should be allocated after termination and not as salary.
Decision 23915
Full Text of Decision 23915
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
bonus |
retaining one's services |
|
Summary:
Daily incentive production bonus and early closure pay allocated upon closure of the mine. In light of ss. 58(9), I am unable to accept that the incentive payments and early closure payments should not be allocated as part of his severance monies but rather during the period he earned these monies.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
appeal system |
test cases |
|
Decision 23049
Full Text of Decision 23049
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
bonus |
retaining one's services |
|
Summary:
Laid off in 5-91 and filed for UI. Laid off permanently in 1-92 and received vacation pay and a loyalty bonus. The loyalty bonus would only be payable if the employee worked until the final date, i.e. the final layoff. It is earnings paid or payable by reason of layoff. Properly allocated from 2-92.
Decision 20966
Full Text of Decision 20966
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
bonus |
retaining one's services |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0600.92
Decision A-0600.92
Full Text of Decision A-0600.92
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
bonus |
retaining one's services |
|
Summary:
Permanent closure of company. Bonus of $3.13 per hour payable in lump sum as incentive for workers to stay and complete the job. Not contained in original contract. Held that wages per hour were increased for 28-9-90 to 4-1-91 and are to be allocated under ss. 58(3). Upheld by FC.
Decision 21043
Full Text of Decision 21043
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
bonus |
retaining one's services |
|
Summary:
Production bonus which was not part of the severance pay package and was paid only to those employees who continued working to the date of the plant closure. Claimant worked beyond date of closure and received bonus upon separation. Correctly allocated to subsequent weeks.
Decision 13149A
Full Text of Decision 13149A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
bonus |
retaining one's services |
|
Summary:
H & R Block. Bonus paid at end of employment based on total tax volume was allocated by averaging the sum over the number of weeks of employment as per reg. 58(2). Employer cannot determine when the services were performed that gave rise to the commissions.
Decision 12121A
Full Text of Decision 12121A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
bonus |
retaining one's services |
|
Summary:
The Board was of the opinion that, although claimant was offered a severance package, she chose to be bound by the terms of an agreement which required a commitment from her to provide a service in return for salary. Appeal dismissed.
Decision 13625
Full Text of Decision 13625
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
bonus |
retaining one's services |
|
Summary:
Bonus allocated under 58(10) starting on last day of work. Bonus was described as bonus paid to employees to encourage them to stay with the company, equivalent to 1 1/2% of annual salary.
Decision 12356
Full Text of Decision 12356
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
bonus |
retaining one's services |
|
Summary:
I am satisfied that the stand-by pay must be treated as earnings, that there was at least an oral contract. This arose out of his employment. Under reg. 58(4), these earnings must be allocated to the period of stand-by. [p. 4-5]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
conditions required |
rehired within 7 days |
|
| reconsideration of claim |
factual cases |
interruption of earnings |
|
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
not a ground of entitlement |
|
Decision 11703
Full Text of Decision 11703
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
bonus |
retaining one's services |
|
Summary:
Pool compensation is severance/layoff pay according to agreement. Paid weekly to claimant by Pacific Western Airlines. No reason to conclude that pool arrangement should result in a redefinition of severance pay.
Decision 55459
Full Text of Decision 55459
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
bonus |
signing contract |
|
Summary:
Claimant paid $406 following the ratification of the contract. Considered as a signing bonus and allocated to the week of the signature. The representative claimed that the money had been paid in lieu of other salary and benefits improvement the union was trying to obtain. Held by umpire that the employer had agreed to the payment of a bonus which was to be paid on a given date. Amounts were therefore paid as a direct result of the signing of the agreement.
Decision A-0610.01
Full Text of Decision A-0610.01
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
bonus |
signing contract |
|
Summary:
The claimant was paid $1,000 in the form of a contract signing bonus. According to the Commission, the triggering event was the signature of the new Master Agreement and the bonus was allocated in the week of the transaction. The Court stated that in questions of mixed fact and law, an Umpire can only intervene if the BOR's interpretation is unreasonable. The Court found that the BOR's application of the facts to the law was not unreasonable in deciding that the bonus dealt with past services and concluded that the Umpire could not intervene.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Decision 53378
Full Text of Decision 53378
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
bonus |
signing contract |
|
Summary:
Collective agreement was signed on 17-01-2001 granting a lump sum of $1,000 a year for 1999 and 2000, calculated on the basis of the number of hours worked during these years. Amount allocated to the week of the event. BOR allowed the appeal, deciding that this was a retroactive pay increase. Decision overturned by the Umpire who, referring to the decision in CUB 41845, ruled that it was the signing of the collective agreement that created the right to be paid the lump sum.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
transaction |
|
Decision 53100
Full Text of Decision 53100
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
bonus |
signing contract |
|
Summary:
Bonus of $625 paid when agreement signed. Despite a tentative agreement was reached on March 31, the bonus could not be paid unless and until the agreement was ratified. Reference made to FCA A-1105.90.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
transaction |
|
Decision 52055
Full Text of Decision 52055
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
bonus |
signing contract |
|
Summary:
Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0610.01
Decision 41845
Full Text of Decision 41845
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
bonus |
signing contract |
|
Summary:
While the signing bonus was not paid until the week ending August 9, 1996, it was paid as a result of the labour agreement ratified on July 10, 1996. The fact that the employer was given 30 days from the date of ratification to make the payment does not negate that it is the agreement which gave rise to the payment. Distinguishing the case from Patenaude (CUB 12503), the Umpire found that all that stood between the claimant and the actual payment was a term of 30 days. A term is not a condition. It involves no uncertainty. The Commission's appeal must succeed.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
bonus |
retaining one's services |
|
| earnings |
allocation |
transaction |
|
Decision 35199
Full Text of Decision 35199
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
bonus |
signing contract |
|
Summary:
Advance settlement bonus payable after ratification of the contract in the case of permanent employees, and when they return to work or at their request in the case of those laid-off. The understanding was not part of the collective agreement. It cannot be concluded that there was a transaction within the meaning of R. 58(18)(b) for all employees.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
income |
paid or payable |
|
Decision 28544
Full Text of Decision 28544
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
bonus |
signing contract |
|
Summary:
Signing bonus payable upon ratification of new contract on 6-10-92 not paid until claimant's return to work 25-10 as per union's request. The triggering event in this transaction was the signing of the contract. The Board erred in law when it found that the transaction was not completed until paid.
Decision 27135
Full Text of Decision 27135
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
bonus |
signing contract |
|
Summary:
Collective agreement signed 6-10. Bonus of $700 then became payable but, at the request of the union, it was agreed that the laid off employees should receive it at the time they returned to work, which was 14-11. OSTONAL quoted. Held that the transaction under 58(18)(b) occurred in week of 6-10.
Decision 26677
Full Text of Decision 26677
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
bonus |
signing contract |
|
Summary:
Claimant received $250 on 16-7-93. CUB 17902 followed. Held that this is income arising out of employment to be allocated under para. 58(18)(b) to the week of 23-5-93 since the collective agreement was signed on 28-5-93.
Decision A-1105.90
Full Text of Decision A-1105.90
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
bonus |
signing contract |
|
Summary:
Bonus of $800 paid upon ratification of agreement. Clearly "earnings from employment". Ss. 58(3) and (18)(a) are cast in retrospective terms. Not applicable here. Payable whether or not she returned after maternity leave. Whether it arose from transaction is a finding of fact.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
wages or salary |
allocation |
|
| earnings |
allocation |
transaction |
|
Decision 18360
Full Text of Decision 18360
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
bonus |
signing contract |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-1105.90
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
wages or salary |
allocation |
|
| earnings |
allocation |
transaction |
|
Decision 18836
Full Text of Decision 18836
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
bonus |
signing contract |
|
Summary:
As per agreement concluded on 23-10-87 all eligible employees on layoff are required to apply for the signing bonus. Claimant did not know about it until he returned to work in 12-87. The transaction in reg. 58(18)(b) did not occur until claimant applied for the bonus in 12-87.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
transaction |
|
Decision 17902
Full Text of Decision 17902
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
bonus |
signing contract |
|
Summary:
Claimant became entitled to $200 as a signing bonus upon the execution of a collective agreement. It was income arising out of his employment even if payment occurred during a layoff period. To be allocated to week of transaction, i.e. the week the agreement was signed.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
transaction |
|
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
contract and labour agreement |
|
Decision 12503
Full Text of Decision 12503
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
bonus |
signing contract |
|
Summary:
Laid off July. Negotiations going on. Agreement ratified 13-10. Early signing bonus of $500 not payable to members on lay-off until recall. Claimant recalled 31-10. Meaning of "transaction" in 58(18) discussed. Monies to be allocated to week of 31-10, not 13-10.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
transaction |
|
