Decision A-0619.05
Full Text of Decision A-0619.05
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
Employer Savings Account |
|
Summary:
A seasonal worker maintained that the vacation pay was paid to him as he earned it, and that, pursuant to an agreement with the employer, it is not earnings under the Regulations, but savings. The vacation pay consisted of weekly deductions of 6% for savings, which were deposited in a savings account set up by the employer, who administered, controlled and managed it. The money accumulated was paid out to the claimant as a result of a separation from employment. The Court said the BOR erred in determining that the fact that the employer deposited the amounts in a regular savings account, rather than a trust account, was a mere technicality that in no way altered the nature of monies in question. The Court said that vacation pay, paid or payable by reason of a lay-off or separation from an employment, is to be allocated to a number of weeks that begins with the week of the lay-off or separation. This is the intention of subsection 36(9) "regardless of the nature of the earnings or the period in respect of which the earnings are purported to be paid or payable." The Court took into consideration the following decisions : Bryden (Supreme Court), Haycock (A-47-90), Brière (A-702-93), Leblanc (A-352-90), Liberati and Labonté (A-454-92) et Nield (A-46-90).
Decision 22196
Full Text of Decision 22196
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
as income |
|
Summary:
Claimant gives his reasons why UI provisions relating to vacation pay are unfair. I must say I agree with this criticism. To treat accumulated vacation pay paid out on termination as earnings during the period of unemployment is both conceptually and logically offensive. Umpire has no discretion.
Decision A-1118.88
Full Text of Decision A-1118.88
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
as income |
|
Summary:
Holiday pay, bonus for seniority and sick leave paid upon separation from employment. The only question in dispute is whether those sums, which otherwise would be considered earnings, come within the purview of the exception in para. 57(3)(h).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
accumulated sick leave credits |
|
|
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
each word counts |
|
Decision 15838
Full Text of Decision 15838
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
as income |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-1118.88
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
accumulated sick leave credits |
|
|
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
each word counts |
|
Decision 16388
Full Text of Decision 16388
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
as income |
|
Summary:
As per claimant, only monies for which UI premiums have been deducted should be considered earnings. Vacation pay is earnings unless reg. 57(3)(h) applies. Deduction of UI premiums is not a consideration. Not for Board or Umpire to amend legislation.
Decision 16144
Full Text of Decision 16144
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
as income |
|
Summary:
In regard to reg. 58(13)(b) and claimant's complaint that his vacation pay came from his 2nd-last employer, there is as well reg. 59(2) to be noted. Nothing unthinkable about allocating the monies from his 2nd-last employment.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
rationale |
|
|
| earnings |
allocation |
previous employment |
|
Decision A-0003.87
Full Text of Decision A-0003.87
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
as income |
|
Summary:
Vacation pay which does not fall under the exempting provision of former para. 57(3)(h), and thus constituted earnings.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
official wordings differ |
|
Decision 13515
Full Text of Decision 13515
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
as income |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0271.87
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
accumulated sick leave credits |
|
|
| earnings |
severance pay |
as income |
|
Decision A-0271.87
Full Text of Decision A-0271.87
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
as income |
|
Summary:
The matter will be returned to the Umpire to decide on the basis that the amounts received by claimant as severance pay, vacation pay and sick leave were earnings.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
accumulated sick leave credits |
|
|
| earnings |
severance pay |
as income |
|
Decision 12727
Full Text of Decision 12727
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
as income |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0661.86
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
accumulated sick leave credits |
|
|
| earnings |
severance pay |
as income |
|
Decision A-0661.86
Full Text of Decision A-0661.86
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
as income |
|
Summary:
The sums received by the claimant in 2-86 as severance pay, vacation pay and sick leave are earnings to be allocated under ss. 58(10).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
accumulated sick leave credits |
|
|
| earnings |
severance pay |
as income |
|
Decision 12399
Full Text of Decision 12399
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
as income |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0508.86
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
effective date of proviso |
|
Decision A-0508.86
Full Text of Decision A-0508.86
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
as income |
|
Summary:
Vacation pay earned in part prior to 31-3-85 (date on which the Regulations were amended) but paid after. Conclusion: vacation pay must be examined in light of existing legislation at the time it is paid rather than earned.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
effective date of proviso |
|
Decision 12925
Full Text of Decision 12925
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
as income |
|
Summary:
Vacation pay paid to claimant while she continued to work part-time [p. 2]. Since she cannot establish that any of the exceptions in 57(3) are applicable, the vacation pay received is earnings to be allocated under 58(8)(b). [p. 10]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
rationale |
|
|
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 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 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 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.
Decision 22732
Full Text of Decision 22732
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
charter |
|
Summary:
Any distinction or differentiation arising from para. 57(2)(a) and ss. 58(8) is related to entitlement qualifications or standards based on socio-economic policy considerations, and is not a discriminatory inequality based on grounds relating to personal charasteristics of an individual or group.
Decision 20991
Full Text of Decision 20991
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
charter |
|
Summary:
Claimant alleges that the unequal treatment in vacation pay pursuant to s.6 and 9 of the Act and reg. 37, 57 and 58 is unfair and constitutes a violation of s.26 of the Charter which cannot be justified under s.1 of the Charter. S.26 of the Charter is of no assistance to her.
Decision 17615
Full Text of Decision 17615
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
charter |
|
Summary:
Alleges discrimination under Charter as if vacation pay had been paid out to claimant otherwise, CEIC would not have taken it into account. Treatment judged not to be discriminatory several times over (CUB-16020, 13892, 13982).
Decision 26076
Full Text of Decision 26076
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
definition |
|
Summary:
Employed with Motor Ford Co. The $500 special payment received by the claimant was governed by the vacation pay provisions of the collective agreement and was directly linked to his vacation pay entitlement. The monies in question were simply an enhancement of claimant's regular vacation pay.
Although vacation pay may be described as a bonus, indemnity, wage adjustment or gratuity, if the monies received are in the nature of vacation pay, either under the terms of a verbal or collective agreement, they will be treated as such for UI benefit purposes.
Decision 21415
Full Text of Decision 21415
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
definition |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-1232.92
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| teaching |
earnings |
vacation pay |
|
Decision A-1232.92
Full Text of Decision A-1232.92
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
definition |
|
Summary:
Part-time teacher at CEGEP F.-X. Garneau who argued that the amount received at termination should be considered as salary instead of vacation pay. Held that this argument is without merit and that the Umpire did not commit any error in this respect.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| teaching |
earnings |
vacation pay |
|
Decision 22261
Full Text of Decision 22261
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
definition |
|
Summary:
Claimant contends that the monies are not vacation pay, that the payments were not made pursuant to the expired collective agreement, they were the result of negotiations and were made gratuitously in the hope of reducing the tension from the labour dispute. No evidence to support this.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
specific period |
|
Decision 21913
Full Text of Decision 21913
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
definition |
|
Summary:
Annual set salary based on 48 weeks; the employer withholds 10% of this salary that is kept in a trust account; it is paid to the employee on demand when he decides to go for a rest. To be distributed as vacation pay pursuant to 58(8).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
trust fund |
|
Decision A-0117.81
Full Text of Decision A-0117.81
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
definition |
|
Summary:
The Umpire erred in law in deciding that the 8% paid in lieu of vacation was severance pay.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of facts |
|
Decision A-0118.81
Full Text of Decision A-0118.81
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
definition |
|
Summary:
The Umpire erred in law in deciding that the 8% paid in lieu of vacation was severance pay.
Decision 67739
Full Text of Decision 67739
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
in any other case |
|
Summary:
The claiamnt had not scheduled her vacation, clearly for reasons beyond her control, when she received her vacation pay on the anniversary date. The vacation pay therefore had to be allocated from the date of payment, in accordance with section 36(8)(b) of the Employment Insurance Regulations as interpreted in the case law.
Decision 56514
Full Text of Decision 56514
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
in any other case |
|
Summary:
Prior to his last day of work, on Nov. 23, 2001, the claimant requested and was paid his bonus vacation pay of $3,759.16 and his anniversary holiday pay of $6,615.30 was paid to him in accordance with his anniversary date of Nov. 9, 2001. Anniversary vacation was allocated starting with the week of the anniversary date as provided in par. 36(8)(b) of the EIR and the bonus vacation pay was allocated pursuant to ss. 36(9) of the EIR. Umpire found that the BOR's decision on both issues was correct and dismissed the appeal.
Decision 56212
Full Text of Decision 56212
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
in any other case |
|
Summary:
The Regulations provide that vacation pay which is not payable for a specific vacation is to be allocated to the number of weeks starting with the first week for which it is payable. In this case the vacation pay became payable on the anniversary date. The fact that the claimant had resumed work by the time the payment was received does not affect the allocation.
Decision 31967
Full Text of Decision 31967
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
in any other case |
|
Summary:
V.P. paid during a 2-week shutdown while claimant on sick leave. Employer designated the 2-week period starting 21-11-93 as claimant's individual vacation. V.P. allocated from 21-11 but BOR and Umpire held that V.P. to be allocated during shutdown (18-7to 31-7) as per Reg.58(8)a). Appeal to FC.
Decision 31779
Full Text of Decision 31779
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
in any other case |
|
Summary:
Vacation pay paid on an anniversary date while the claimant was on maternity leave. Allocation made pursuant to Reg.58(8). Held that Regulation had been properly implemented.
Decision A-0496.94
Full Text of Decision A-0496.94
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
in any other case |
|
Summary:
Vacation pay (v.p.) paid during lock-out on 3-11-90 and allocated from 28-10-90. Umpire determined that v.p. was not to be so allocated for the reason that it became "payable" on 1-1-90. The Court concluded that v.p. is payable when a claimant could in law enforce the payment. Matter returned to BOR
Decision 25143
Full Text of Decision 25143
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
in any other case |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0496.94
Decision 26456
Full Text of Decision 26456
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
in any other case |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0071.95
Decision A-0071.95
Full Text of Decision A-0071.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
in any other case |
|
Summary:
Vacation pay for time not taken in a year to be paid upon request any time in the following year commencing January 1. Held by the Umpire that the vacation pay becomes immediately due or owed January 1 regardless of when the amount is actually paid and that reg. 58(8)(b) applies. Upheld by FC.
Decision 27951
Full Text of Decision 27951
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
in any other case |
|
Summary:
The Board wrongly concluded that the word payable in 58(8)(b)(i) means when the monies are received. The word payable means payable. It does not mean when received. Held that the $500.00 vacation bonus received from Ford Motor Company in 12-92 was payable in 6-92 and subparagraph 58(8)(b)(i) applies.
Decision 25488
Full Text of Decision 25488
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
in any other case |
|
Summary:
Claimant submits that the dates supplied for the allocation of the vacation pay are "hind-sight". In that respect he is correct. However, that is what the Regulations mandate. Ss. 58(8) is clear that the vacation pay is to be allocated according to when payable and not when it was actually paid.
Decision 22173
Full Text of Decision 22173
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
in any other case |
|
Summary:
Claimant took a leave without pay in 9-90 to attend university. Job not guaranteed at end of leave in 4-91, so she requested her vacation pay. It appears that the money was paid not by reason of separation or lay-off but because of claimant's request. The money must be allocated when paid.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
charter |
|
|
Decision 21526
Full Text of Decision 21526
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
in any other case |
|
Summary:
Vacation pay paid on anniversary date 2 weeks before layoff correctly allocated under reg. 58(8)(b) from the week paid. As for "the first week for which it is payable", the logical inference is that vacation pay would be payable in respect of the week following its payment.
Decision A-0258.90
Full Text of Decision A-0258.90
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
in any other case |
|
Summary:
Claimant's 1987 vacation pay not paid to her on a timely basis because of employer's financial difficulties. Paid to her in 11-88. The Board and the Umpire erred in law in characterizing as a loan the unpaid amount. It does not possess the attributes of a loan. No such evidence.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of facts |
|
| earnings |
vacation pay |
specific period |
|
Decision 16981
Full Text of Decision 16981
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
in any other case |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0446.89
Decision A-0446.89
Full Text of Decision A-0446.89
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
in any other case |
|
Summary:
Vacation pay paid in 6-87 on one's anniversary date was not paid in respect of layoff or separation. As there is no evidence that he took his holidays during a specific period in 1986, the monies were properly allocated under 58(8)(b) in 6-87, said the Umpire. Upheld by the FC.
Decision 18398
Full Text of Decision 18398
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
in any other case |
|
Summary:
Vacation pay paid on anniversary date during lay-off. Claimant was recalled to work a few weeks later and specific dates were then arranged for vacation. Jurisprudence thoroughly examined. Reg. 58(8)(a) does not fit the circumstances. Nor does 58(9). Reg. 58(8)(b) applies.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
specific period |
|
Decision 17975
Full Text of Decision 17975
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
in any other case |
|
Summary:
Laid off 7-2-86. Returned 20-10-86. Vacation pay cheques prepared in week 6-7-86 held for employees on layoff until return to work unless requested. Monies received by claimant 10-11-86. Normal vacation period: end of 7-86. Reg. 58(13)(c), not 58(13)(a), applies effective 6-7-86.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
independent decision-making |
|
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
| earnings |
vacation pay |
specific period |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Decision A-0059.89
Full Text of Decision A-0059.89
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
in any other case |
|
Summary:
Laid off 10-86. Vacation pay for 1986 paid by employer in 1-87 allocated under 58(8)(b). The Umpire made no error in finding, contrary to the Board, that the collective agreement did not create a trust and consequently vacation pay was earnings.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
trust fund |
|
Decision 15657
Full Text of Decision 15657
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
in any other case |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0059.89
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
trust fund |
|
Decision A-0058.89
Full Text of Decision A-0058.89
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
in any other case |
|
Summary:
Laid off 11-86. Vacation pay for 1986 paid by employer in 1-87 allocated under 58(13)(c). CUB 15360 distinguished by Umpire. The Umpire made no error in finding that the collective agreement did not create a trust and consequently vacation pay was earnings.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
trust fund |
|
Decision 15659
Full Text of Decision 15659
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
in any other case |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0058.89
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
trust fund |
|
Decision 17579
Full Text of Decision 17579
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
in any other case |
|
Summary:
Under collective agreement, vacation pay should have been paid 9-87 at time of vacation; paid by mistake 5-87 at expiry of maternity leave. As for CUB-11819, employer made the mistake and claimant does not have to suffer from it.
Decision 17534
Full Text of Decision 17534
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
in any other case |
|
Summary:
Vacation pay paid to claimant every two weeks with his pay cheque while working part-time. It is clear the allocation was correctly applied under 58(13)(c) since it was not paid (a) in respect of a specific vacation period nor (b) as a result of a layoff or separation.
Decision 15239A
Full Text of Decision 15239A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
in any other case |
|
Summary:
Vacation pay paid at time of annual vacation shutdown. Reg. 58(8)(b) applies even to these claimants who were laid off several weeks before, worked during the shutdown and had vacation scheduled for a later period. Reg. 58(8)(a) can only apply where vacation already taken.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
time limitation |
|
Decision 17021
Full Text of Decision 17021
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
in any other case |
|
Summary:
Vacation pay paid on anniversary date allocated as per average weekly wage plus part-time earnings. There is no dispute that the vacation pay is earnings and was paid on a specific anniversary date. As such it was properly allocated under 58(13)(c).
Decision 16518
Full Text of Decision 16518
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
in any other case |
|
Summary:
Claimant had taken 2 weeks' vacation in 6-86 but was not paid for this until the end of the year. It is employer's policy to pay vacation only once a year. His vacation pay of $3,215 was properly allocated from 1-87 pursuant to reg. 58(13)(c).
Decision 16514
Full Text of Decision 16514
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
in any other case |
|
Summary:
Claimant paid vacation pay on anniversary date (22-6) while employed. Laid off 11-7. Monies to be allocated under reg. 58(13)(c) as of 22-6. No proof that he actually had a prior specific vacation period as alleged which would bring 58(13)(a) into play.
Decision 15921
Full Text of Decision 15921
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
in any other case |
|
Summary:
Vacation pay, paid on anniversary date while claimant not working due to illness, is earnings. Correctly allocated under 58(13)(c) commencing with week in which paid, even if claimant subsequently booked vacation for later period. Not paid in respect ofvacation or separation.
Decision 15928
Full Text of Decision 15928
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
in any other case |
|
Summary:
The practice is to pay vacation pay 30-6 each year and employee given corresponding number of weeks as vacation. Monies paid here 30-6-87 and vacation scheduled for 12-87. Reg. 58(13)(c) applies. Paid on basis of practice not in respect of vacation. PREUSCHE distinguished.
Decision 15809
Full Text of Decision 15809
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
in any other case |
|
Summary:
Due to mutual oversight or ignorance, claimant did not receive her vacation pay until 2 months after she ceased working. Monies correctly allocated under reg. 58(13)(c) beginning with the week in which vacation pay was paid.
Decision 15774
Full Text of Decision 15774
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
in any other case |
|
Summary:
Laid off 14-7, vacation pay paid 15-7 (anniversary date). Vacation period booked for next December. Since vacation pay was in fact paid on an annual basis every 15-7 regardless of whether vacation was taken, reg. 58(13)(c) should be applied and not 58(13)(a).
Decision 15658
Full Text of Decision 15658
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
in any other case |
|
Summary:
Claimant laid off 2-1-87. He had requested his vacation pay some 2 weeks prior to layoff and it was paid 10-1-87. Correctly allocated from 4-1-87 under reg. 58(13)(c).
Decision 15323
Full Text of Decision 15323
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
in any other case |
|
Summary:
Vacation pay paid some time after layoff. Prima facie vacation pay is earnings under reg. 57(2)(a) to be allocated under reg. 58(13). Even if the monies were not paid in respect of the layoff as per reg. 58(13)(b), reg. 58(13)(c) applies "in any other case".
Decision 13818
Full Text of Decision 13818
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
in any other case |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0493.87
Decision A-0493.87
Full Text of Decision A-0493.87
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
in any other case |
|
Summary:
Often vacation pay paid after severance of employment may be viewed as moneys that became payable in respect thereof, in that they are usually triggered by severance and paid in consequence thereof. Here, the layoff occurred 29-3 and vacation was paid on anniversary date in July.
Decision A-0869.87
Full Text of Decision A-0869.87
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
in any other case |
|
Summary:
Claimant laid off on 31-10-85. No need for employer to pay vacation pay until 1-2-86 as this was the anniversay date of agreement. Monies paid 18-1-86 and were correctly allocated under para. 58(8)(b) starting with week of payment.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
official wordings differ |
|
Decision 14666
Full Text of Decision 14666
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
in any other case |
|
Summary:
If vacation pay does not come within 58(13)(b) then it must come within (c). The Board assumed that if it did not come within (b) it was exempt from allocation. This is not so. If neither (a) nor (b) applies, then (c) which starts out "in any other case" must apply.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
by reason of lay-off or separation |
|
Decision 14273
Full Text of Decision 14273
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
in any other case |
|
Summary:
Paid during layoff. The pay was clearly not referrable either to a specific vacation period or a layoff or separation from employment under reg. 58(13)(a) and (b) and was properly allocated to the week in which it was paid or payable.
Decision 14111
Full Text of Decision 14111
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
in any other case |
|
Summary:
Properly allocated under 58(8)(b). The cheque issued was the balance owing of anniversary holiday pay part of which covered previous anniversary date to time of winter holidays. It was the actual amount payable on anniversary date that must be taken into account.
Decision A0333.12
Full Text of Decision A0333.12
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
quebec construction decree |
|
Summary:
An investigation revealed that the claimant reported $130.00 a week while the employer stated that the claimant earned $147.08 in each of the 10 weeks at issue. On the basis of these facts, the Commission informed the claimant that the allocation of the unreported wages resulted in an overpayment of $150.00. The claimant argued that he did not consider the unreported amounts earnings because they were deducted by his employer and paid to the CCQ for his annual vacation. The FCA confirmed that the amounts deducted as vacation pay were sent to the CCQ, which acts as a trustee, should be considered earnings subject to allocation under section 36(4) of the Regulations.
Decision 17336
Full Text of Decision 17336
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
quebec construction decree |
|
Summary:
Union representative of workers employed in the Quebec construction industry. Vacation periods established by the Office de la construction, but the Board decided that GIROUX did not apply in this case. No error in law. Very little information.
Decision A-0527.87
Full Text of Decision A-0527.87
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
quebec construction decree |
|
Summary:
I erred in stating in the DAIGLE case that the BRYDEN decision did not apply to annual vacation pay paid under the Quebec Construction Decree. The decision to allocate vacation pay over the annual vacation period in December is thereby quashed.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
charter |
|
|
| earnings |
vacation pay |
trust fund |
|
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
official wordings differ |
|
Decision A-0547.83
Full Text of Decision A-0547.83
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
quebec construction decree |
|
Summary:
Vacation allocated to 7-80. Case not identical to BRYDEN: not possible to receive vacation pay before vacation and decree establishing dates of vacations rather than contractual arrangement.
Decision 16264
Full Text of Decision 16264
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
quebec garment decree |
|
Summary:
Based on GIROUX, I must therefore declare that the vacation pay paid to the claimant under the system established by decree in the ladies garment industry does not have compensation value.
Decision 66035
Full Text of Decision 66035
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
specific period |
|
Summary:
The Commission correctly allocated the two weeks vacation pay the claimant actually took to the periods of scheduled vacation in accordance with Regulation 36(8)(a). The balance of the vacation pay for the four weeks which the claimant had not taken, was allocated pursuant to Regulation 36(8)(b). The effect of paragraph 36(8)(b) is that vacation pay which is not payable for a specific vacation period is to be allocated to the number of weeks starting with the first week for which it is payable.
Decision 64812
Full Text of Decision 64812
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
specific period |
|
Summary:
In March 2004, while on claim, the claimant received a vacation pay accumulated in the year 2003 and paid on anniversary under the collective agreement. In 2003, the claimant had taken vacation leave under the Canadian Labour Code, without pay. The Umpire states that, as established by jurisprudence, to hold that the vacation time taken by the claimant could not be taken into consideration in allocating her vacation pay would be against the purpose and objective of subsection 36(8) of the Regulations. He concluded that the claimant's vacation pay paid in March 2004 is to be allocated to the periods she took as unpaid holidays in 2003.
Decision A-0701.95
Full Text of Decision A-0701.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
specific period |
|
Summary:
Claimant laid off Nov.11, 1992. On Oct.30th of the same year, vac. pay of $2,307 paid to him. Allocation made from date of lay-off as per Reg.58(9). BOR accepted that vac. monies received on separation were not payable due to a lay off but resulted in accordance with an agreement between the employer and its unionized employees as to a "common vacation pay cut-off date" and felt within the meaning of ss.58(8). FCA recognized that it was strictly a finding of fact and that the Umpire correctly refused to interfere.
Decision 29106
Full Text of Decision 29106
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
specific period |
|
Summary:
Applied for vacation prior to the shutdown notice and took his vacation prior to the vacation shutdown. Held that he was not under the labour agreement "an employee eligible for vacation" during the shutdown, and the specific vacation period under 58(8)(a) refers to claimant's own vacation period.
Decision 24228
Full Text of Decision 24228
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
specific period |
|
Summary:
Vacation shutdown in July-August. Claimant applied for and obtained vacation pay on 7-6 for vacation starting 15-6. He was then offered and accepted to work during his vacation. Held that his vacation period was not the weeks in June as he worked during those weeks, but the normal vacation shutdown.
Decision 23519
Full Text of Decision 23519
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
specific period |
|
Summary:
Part-time nurse who received vacation pay on an annual date while on maternity leave. Non-working days while she worked part-time cannot be regarded as vacation days under para. 58(8)(a). Correctly allocated from week of payment under para. 58(8)(b).
Decision 22908
Full Text of Decision 22908
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
specific period |
|
Summary:
Vacation normally scheduled at the end of July; lock-out from 6-11-91 to 9-9-91. On 9-91, claimant was dismissed and received a vacation pay. In sum, I find that the amounts paid to the claimant did not relate to a specific period of past vacation, but were rather paid because of his dismissal.
Decision 22429
Full Text of Decision 22429
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
specific period |
|
Summary:
Laid off 18-6-85. Vacation pay received on anniversary date 27-6-85. Claimant had scheduled a specific vacation period in 10-85 and 12-85. PREUSCHE & McMASTER examined: para. 58(8)(a) must necesarily apply to a past period. Monies properly allocated starting with the week of payment.
Decision 22419
Full Text of Decision 22419
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
specific period |
|
Summary:
Laid off 31-5-85. Was paid anniversary vacation pay 28-6-85. Allocated from week of payment. He had taken 5 weeks holidays prior to anniversary date, between 6-84 and 6-85. Not paid in respect of a vacation period as per the CEIC. Held that monies are first to be allocated to the vacation period.
Decision 22261
Full Text of Decision 22261
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
specific period |
|
Summary:
Ceased work due to strike in 4-90. In 1-91, the employer and the union reached an agreement for the payment of vacation pay. The Board held that the allocation should be made prior to 1-91 since vacation had to be taken between 1-1-90 to 31-12-90. Held that para. 58(8)(b) applies instead.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
definition |
|
Decision 21070A
Full Text of Decision 21070A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
specific period |
|
Summary:
Laid off in 1-90. Recalled for a short period in 2-90 at which time he booked 2 weeks holiday scheduled to begin in 10-90. Vacation pay paid in 7-90 while still on layoff. PREUSCHE and MCMASTER examined. The statement that "the unemployed cannot be expected to go on vacation" is applicable here.
PREUSCHE & McMASTER referred to. The Commission submits that the words "in respect of" in the former ss. 58(13) and the word "for" in ss. 58(8) have the same meaning. I agree with that submission. I am satisfied that the legislator did not intend to change the meaning of the regulation.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Decision 21545
Full Text of Decision 21545
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
specific period |
|
Summary:
Vacation pay paid on anniversary date coincidental with layoff. Vacation taken at various times prior to layoff but no monies paid at that time. The CEIC argues that monies must be paid at time of vacation in order to come under 58(13)(a). Part of the monies came under 58(13)(a).
Decision 20995
Full Text of Decision 20995
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
specific period |
|
Summary:
Out of work 1-89; gets vacation pay 3-89; distributed by Board over 7-89, the vacation period. According to PREUSCHE & McMASTER, amount to be distributed according to Reg. 58(13)(c). Reg. 58(13)(a) can apply only to periods previous to date of payment.
Decision 20426
Full Text of Decision 20426
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
specific period |
|
Summary:
At Sears, 4% paid at the end of June of each year whether or not employee has planned vacations for that specific period. The insured had chosen the following August for her vacations. Reg. 58(13)(a) applies only when vacations precede vacation pay.
Decision 20053
Full Text of Decision 20053
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
specific period |
|
Summary:
Vacation pay cheque 5-7 allocated under 58(8)(b). While there seems to be no formal procedure for designating the 4 weeks ending 20-8 as her vacation period, she was entitled to treat those as vacation time. Her entitlement cannot depend on the timing of the issue of the cheque.
Decision 19907
Full Text of Decision 19907
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
specific period |
|
Summary:
Decided that vacation pay related to specific vacation period as referred to in Reg. 58(8)(a), that is general vacation leave 7-90, even though remuneration was paid as early as 1-90 at union's request rather than normally during general vacation leave.
Decision 19751
Full Text of Decision 19751
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
specific period |
|
Summary:
Monies paid on anniversary date 3 weeks before layoff held to have been paid in respect of future vacation weeks within 58(8) in cases where specific periods had been scheduled prior to receipt of money. PREUSCHE & McMASTER distinguished, the layoff here being of short duration.
Decision 19018
Full Text of Decision 19018
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
specific period |
|
Summary:
Claimant took 2 days' unpaid leave some time prior to separation from employment. Held that these 2 days were not a specific vacation period for the purpose of reg. 58(13)(a) and that the $227 he received on separation were properly allocated under 58(13)(b).
Decision A-0258.90
Full Text of Decision A-0258.90
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
specific period |
|
Summary:
Entitled to a paid vacation period in 1987 but was asked to work instead. The employer did not have funds available to pay her additional amounts then. Held that monies paid in 11-88 were payable with respect to the 1987 vacation period under para. 58(8)(a). Overturned by FC.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of facts |
|
| earnings |
vacation pay |
in any other case |
|
Decision 18706
Full Text of Decision 18706
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
specific period |
|
Summary:
If a portion or all of the holiday pay issued by his former employer upon an anniversary date in 5-88 related in part or totally to the holiday taken in 7-87, then in accord with PREUSHE & MCMASTER it would properly be allocated under reg. 58(13)(a).
Decision 18398
Full Text of Decision 18398
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
specific period |
|
Summary:
PREUSCHE & McMASTER examined. The reason for resorting to past periods under 58(8)(a) is that the unemployed cannot be expected to go on vacation. The legislation cannot ascertain whether or not he will still be laid off when the chosen time scheduled for later rolls around.
PREUSCHE & McMASTER permits allocation to actual vacation time already taken in the year under 58(8)(a). It does not explain the term "payable". Of course since vacation must be taken in the year for which the annual vacation pay is paid, it cannot be allocated to previous year.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
in any other case |
|
Decision 17975
Full Text of Decision 17975
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
specific period |
|
Summary:
Reg. 58(13)(a) relates to situations where monies are paid or payable in respect of a specific vacation period taken in the past (see PREUSCHE and MCMASTER) and must necessarily refer to a past period. Here the vacation was not taken and reg. 58(13)(c) applies.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
independent decision-making |
|
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
| earnings |
vacation pay |
in any other case |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Decision 17295
Full Text of Decision 17295
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
specific period |
|
Summary:
Though the Memorandum of Settlement deems that employees took full remaining vacation entitlement during the stoppage, this period does not constitute a specific vacation period. Not genuinely on vacation at that time. Reg. 58(13)(a) cannot apply here.
Decision 16777
Full Text of Decision 16777
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
specific period |
|
Summary:
Vacation periods pre-arranged with employer to take place the following August and December. Laid off 6-6 and vacation paid to all workers 29-6. Workers required to take a vacation under labour agreement. PREUSCHE referred to. Monies paid "in respect of" under reg. 58(13)(a).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
absences from home |
on vacation |
|
Decision 16157
Full Text of Decision 16157
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
specific period |
|
Summary:
Machine shop employee laid off 15-6; vacation pay 26-6; shutdown 6-7 to 3-8 except machine shop. Monies allocated under 58(13)(c) from 28-6 even if claimant's vacation to take place after 3-8. As per PREUSCHE "in respect of" in 58(13)(a) must necessarily apply to a past period.
Decision 13955
Full Text of Decision 13955
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
specific period |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0678.87
Decision A-0678.87
Full Text of Decision A-0678.87
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
specific period |
|
Summary:
We are dealing with a payment received by an unemployed person. The unemployed cannot be expected to go on vacation. "In respect of" in 58(8)(a) can only mean in relation to, in reference to, connected with. The provision must necessarily refer to a past period as here.
Laid off in 12-84. Vacation pay received on anniversary date in 6-85 allocated under para. 58(8)(b). Claimant alleged that, pursuant to the labour agreement, he had already taken a number of vacation days and part of monies should be allocated to those days.
Decision 14703
Full Text of Decision 14703
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
specific period |
|
Summary:
Claimant said only 2 weeks not 3 should have been allocated. One was for vacation earned during previous fiscal year during which she had been refused holidays and took leave without pay. Under 57 this is earnings to which 58 requires allocation and no exception.
Decision 29010
Full Text of Decision 29010
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
trust fund |
|
Summary:
Subsequent amendment to the collective agreement examined following FC decision in DUPLESSIS (CUB 16011A) involving MDC (Maritime Data Center). Held that although the vacation pay is held in trust for the employee, the employee is not beneficially entitled to receive it until October 1 in each year.
Decision A-0702.93
Full Text of Decision A-0702.93
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
trust fund |
|
Summary:
There was no evidence on file on which the Umpire could conclude that a trust fund existed. This is one of the essential conditions required in order that vacation pay lose its earnings status to that of savings. See LEBLANC, LIBERATI & LABONTÉ, NIELD.
Decision A-0454.92
Full Text of Decision A-0454.92
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
trust fund |
|
Summary:
Each claimant had been laid off. Each had had vacation pay credited on a periodic basis though not actually paid to him or to a trustee or in any way segregated from the employer's general funds. Each received vacation pay upon layoff. No doubt that this was earnings.**To become savings, (1) the monies must be set aside and kept separate from the employer's control and operation; (2) income tax and UI premiums must be deducted before the monies are set aside; (3) claimant must be beneficially entitled to the monies after they are set aside.**As to whether the Regulations cannot properly allocate earnings to a period different from that in which actually earned, we cannot improve on GIROUX: Para. 58(q) gives the Commission the power to make regulations, this would deny the Commission such power. Dismissed by FCA. Leave to appeal denied by SC.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
charter |
|
|
Decision 23880
Full Text of Decision 23880
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
trust fund |
|
Summary:
What banking procedures must be followed by the employer to consider that monies were held in trust? Paying them into a separate bank account is certainly one way of doing so. But the existence or non-existence of a separate bank account, alone, is not controlling. All factors must be considered.
WHELAN and NIELD commented. "Kept separate and beyond control" does not mean that the funds must be out of the employer's control. The employer will continue to control the funds as trustee. I understand that the funds cannot be an unidentified part of the employer's operating account.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
hearings |
tape-recording |
|
Decision 22304
Full Text of Decision 22304
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
trust fund |
|
Summary:
To become savings, (1) the monies must be set aside and kept separate from the employer's control and operation; (2) income tax and UI premiums must be deducted before the monies are set aside; (3) claimant must be beneficially entitled to the monies after they are set aside. All 3 must be met.
Decision 22206
Full Text of Decision 22206
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
trust fund |
|
Summary:
Minority decision in VENNARI examined in the light of GIROUX. Case law on trust fund reviewed, and CUB 20811 quoted and applied. Here the employer merely maintained a running ledger account. A simple book entry by the employer falls short of what is required.
Decision 21913
Full Text of Decision 21913
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
trust fund |
|
Summary:
Annual set salary based on 48 weeks; the employer withholds 10% of this salary that is kept in a trust account; it is paid to the employee on demand when he decides to go for a rest. To be distributed as vacation pay pursuant to 58(8).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
definition |
|
Decision A-0939.90
Full Text of Decision A-0939.90
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
trust fund |
|
Summary:
There is no question here of Maritime Data Centre being a trustee of the holiday pay for the claimant, a stevedore. But this does not distinguish this case from LEBLANC. The claimant was not beneficially entitled to the holiday pay upon its payment to Maritime Data Centre.
Stevedore whose vacation pay is paid to Maritime Data Centre. The Umpire relied expressly on a dictum in CUB 14170 to the effect that the situation is akin to a withholding agreement for the purchase of Canada Savings Bond. We do disapprove of the dictum.
The issue is whether the claimant's holiday pay, paid weekly by his employer, a stevedoring company, to Maritime Data Centre, and paid to him annually under the terms of a collective agreement, was received by him when it was paid to MDC or when it was paid to him by MDC.
Decision 16011A
Full Text of Decision 16011A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
trust fund |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0939.90
Decision 20209
Full Text of Decision 20209
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
trust fund |
|
Summary:
Quebec flat glass industry. GIROUX does not apply. Vacation pay is held back by employer and may be withdrawn by the employee at any time as it is deposited to employee's credit the same way as his pay.
Decision 19934
Full Text of Decision 19934
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
trust fund |
|
Summary:
Vacation pay in flat glass industry in Quebec credited each week to employee minus taxes deducted, but held back by employer. Does not meet conditions set out in NIELD as employer may, at his discretion, use these amounts in the meantime. (p. 7)
Decision A-0352.90
Full Text of Decision A-0352.90
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
trust fund |
|
Summary:
Accruing vacation pay was shown weekly on pay stub and, after regular deductions, was retained until the worker's actual vacation. Deemed held in trust as per N.S. legislation. Monies actually commingled in company's general bank account. 'Beneficially entitled' discussed.
The fact that interest earned on vacation pay during the period it is held is, in terms, to be paid to the employee indicates that the principal is being held for the benefit of the employee: see GIROUX. No such evidence here.
Decision 18625
Full Text of Decision 18625
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
trust fund |
|
Summary:
Whether the funds are held in a separate account is not necessarily determinative. While this may be preferable, what is important is that the beneficial interest of the employee be identifiable and distinct from the time funds are held in his name and be payable at his request.
Vacation pay generally paid out weekly. Pursuant to claimant's instructions, the money was deducted from his cheque (income tax and UI paid) and held by employer until requested a few days prior to a layoff of which claimant was unaware at the time. Monies considered savings.
Decision A-0047.90
Full Text of Decision A-0047.90
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
trust fund |
|
Summary:
The deeming provisions of the Ontario Employment Standards Act are not sufficient in themselves to apply BRYDEN. The moneys have to be clearly set aside at each period of pay, after deduction of income tax and UI premiums, kept separate and beyond employer's needs and control. See also identical decision A-46-90 (Nield) in regard to CUB 15257A-1.
Decision A-0030.90
Full Text of Decision A-0030.90
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
trust fund |
|
Summary:
The deeming provisions of the Ontario Employment Standards Act are not sufficient in themselves to apply BRYDEN. The moneys have to be clearly set aside at each period of pay, after deduction of income tax and UI premiums, kept separate and beyond employer's needs and control.
Decision 17605
Full Text of Decision 17605
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
trust fund |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0030.90
Decision 17416A
Full Text of Decision 17416A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
trust fund |
|
Summary:
Employer: Dominion Bridge. Vacation pay shown on pay stubs and regular deductions taken therefrom but the moneys were not set aside to the credit of the employee. The deeming provisions of the Ontario Employment Standards Act are not enough.
Decision 15659
Full Text of Decision 15659
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
trust fund |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0058.89
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
in any other case |
|
Decision A-0059.89
Full Text of Decision A-0059.89
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
trust fund |
|
Summary:
Laid off 10-86. Vacation pay for 1986 paid by employer in 1-87 allocated under 58(8)(b). The Umpire made no error in finding, contrary to the Board, that the collective agreement did not create a trust and consequently vacation pay was earnings.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
in any other case |
|
Decision A-0058.89
Full Text of Decision A-0058.89
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
trust fund |
|
Summary:
Laid off 11-86. Vacation pay for 1986 paid by employer in 1-87 allocated under 58(13)(c). CUB 15360 distinguished by Umpire. The Umpire made no error in finding that the collective agreement did not create a trust and consequently vacation pay was earnings.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
in any other case |
|
Decision 15657
Full Text of Decision 15657
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
trust fund |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0059.89
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
in any other case |
|
Decision 17612
Full Text of Decision 17612
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
trust fund |
|
Summary:
The VENNARI decision followed by GIROUX established 3 fundamental criteria, monies deducted from salary must be put into trust accounts, trust account must not be under employer's control and employee must have access to savings account thus set up.
Decision 15359A
Full Text of Decision 15359A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
trust fund |
|
Summary:
Claimant's contributions to pension fund are earnings both when earned and when paid out of fund. Whether they are savings in the hands of the employee as in VENNARI raised. Distinguishable as "pensions" are specifically described in reg. 57(2) whereas vacation pay is not.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
pension |
profit sharing plan |
|
| earnings |
pension |
not savings |
|
Decision 15501
Full Text of Decision 15501
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
trust fund |
|
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 |
by reason of lay-off or separation |
|
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 |
trust fund |
|
Summary:
Before the Umpire, claimant had unsuccessfully argued that the Employment Standards Act of Ontario created a trust and made the employer the trustee of his vacation pay. At the hearing of this application, he expressly abandoned that contention.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
charter |
|
|
| interruption of earnings |
charter |
|
|
| earnings |
vacation pay |
by reason of lay-off or separation |
|
Decision 15360
Full Text of Decision 15360
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
trust fund |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0756.88
Decision A-0756.88
Full Text of Decision A-0756.88
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
trust fund |
|
Summary:
Vacation pay paid upon separation in March was savings and not earnings. This is supported by s.15 of the Ontario Employment Standards Act: vacation pay deemed held in trust. Money actually set aside by employer at each pay period, after deduction of income tax and UI.
We have some reservations with the approach of the Umpire. The finding that it could be said that an intentional trust, either express or implied, was created, gives us difficulty. But the conclusion finally reached by the Umpire is to be sustained on another basis.
Decision 14170A
Full Text of Decision 14170A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
trust fund |
|
Summary:
The employer had complete control and use of the funds. They were not segregated in a special account. Nor did the Company pay any interest on vacation pay. Claimant had no right to demand vacation pay except at 2 specified annual dates or on layoff.
Decision A-0527.87
Full Text of Decision A-0527.87
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
trust fund |
|
Summary:
I erred in stating in the DAIGLE case that the BRYDEN decision did not apply to annual vacation pay paid under the Quebec Construction Decree. The decision to allocate vacation pay over the annual vacation period in December is thereby quashed.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
charter |
|
|
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
official wordings differ |
|
| earnings |
vacation pay |
quebec construction decree |
|
Decision 14170
Full Text of Decision 14170
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
trust fund |
|
Summary:
VENNARI leaves open the question as to whether the creation of a special trust is a prerequisite to the savings. I conclude it is not. The test is whether the remuneration withheld from employee and to which he is legally entitled is remuneration when ultimately paid out.
Decision 13856
Full Text of Decision 13856
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
trust fund |
|
Summary:
VENNARI examined and commented as follows: The Court recognized that the money was earnings at the time that the employer placed it into the trust fund but held that the money's character changed to savings when payments were made from it to the claimant.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
provincial and other laws |
|
Decision 12002
Full Text of Decision 12002
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
trust fund |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0261.86
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
charter |
|
|
| earnings |
allocation |
applicability |
|
| earnings |
income |
applicability |
|
Decision A-0261.86
Full Text of Decision A-0261.86
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
trust fund |
|
Summary:
The employer's contributions lost their character as "income" upon being paid into the Trust Fund and, accordingly, the vacation pay was not received as "earnings" or as "income" but as savings.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
charter |
|
|
| earnings |
allocation |
applicability |
|
| earnings |
income |
applicability |
|
Decision 1623382
Full Text of Decision 1623382
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
trust fund |
|
Summary:
Ontario union worker whose employer paid 9% of his wages to trustees after deduction of income tax and UI premiums. Claimant had a beneficial interest in these monies which represented savings and not vacation pay.
Decision A-0672.79
Full Text of Decision A-0672.79
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
vacation pay |
trust fund |
|
Summary:
Ontario union worker whose employer paid 9% of his wages to trustees after deduction of income tax and UI premiums. Claimant had a beneficial interest in these monies which represented savings and not vacation pay.
