Decision 74916
Full Text of Decision 74916
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
interruption of earnings |
bankruptcy |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant worked from November 16, 1998, to October 4, 2002. In March 2009, the trustee notified the Commission, in the context of an arrangement proposal for MINE JEFFREY INC. that it was to pay a dividend to the employees and former employees. This dividend consists of the vacation pay due on October 7, 2002. The Commission allocated the amount which resulted in an overpayment. The claimant appealed and argued that no vacation pay was paid on that day. He also argued that, as a result of the events, he did not consider that the amounts were applicable in 2002, given that the company had filed for bankruptcy protection and that the employees had lost everything, including their benefits and their outstanding vacation pay. The Commission can allocate earnings beyond the 36-month period. However, the Board finds that the allocation of the appellant's earnings must be dated December 20, 2004. Claimant’s appeal is dismissed by the Umpire.
Decision 28145
Full Text of Decision 28145
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
interruption of earnings |
bankruptcy |
|
|
Summary:
Undeclared earnings. The fact that an individual does not have a salary because his employer is experiencing financial difficulties, which was indeed proven here since the employer went bankrupt, does not entitle him to benefits. This is not the Commission's raison d'être.
Decision 23446
Full Text of Decision 23446
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
interruption of earnings |
bankruptcy |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant worked 2 weeks and earned $748 and $814 but never received the monies which nevertheless were allocated as earnings. While it is obvious that he was not unemployed, that is not the basis upon which the Commission originally disentitled him. Decision set aside.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
penalties |
earnings |
bankruptcy |
|
Decision 22115
Full Text of Decision 22115
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
interruption of earnings |
bankruptcy |
|
|
Summary:
CEIC maintains that the same amounts not paid because of bankruptcy are considered insurable for the purposes of calculating benefits rate. Depriving someone of their right to benefits because their salary was not paid to them by reason of bankruptcy would amount to penalizing them.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
basic concepts |
insurability |
bankruptcy |
|
Decision 19081
Full Text of Decision 19081
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
interruption of earnings |
bankruptcy |
|
|
Summary:
Company bankrupt and the insured person did not receive any salary for the last 2 1/2 weeks of work. Not unemployed under the Act and no stoppage in earnings.
Decision 18323
Full Text of Decision 18323
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
interruption of earnings |
bankruptcy |
|
|
Summary:
Accepts a job while on UI and works 6 weeks full-time. Due to the employer's financial difficulties he is paid for only 1 week. No hope for any additional remuneration. BERUBE does not apply: not delivering "benevolent" services. Relief may not be obtained under the UI Act.
Decision 17805
Full Text of Decision 17805
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
interruption of earnings |
bankruptcy |
|
|
Summary:
Some indications that former employer is now bankrupt and the likelihood of claimant receiving severance pay was remote in the extreme. For this reason I have requested the Commission to discuss with claimant the possibility of setting the matter and report outcome to me.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
earnings |
allocation |
from week of layoff |
|
Decision 14675
Full Text of Decision 14675
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
interruption of earnings |
bankruptcy |
|
|
Summary:
It is only the net amount actually received after payment of legal costs which can constitute a payment under reg. 58. It would be the same if the employer went bankrupt and became unable to pay the judgment. [p. 6-7]
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
earnings |
awards |
legal costs |
|
Decision 08891
Full Text of Decision 08891
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
interruption of earnings |
bankruptcy |
|
|
Summary:
Antedate requested for a period during which claimant was employed pursuant to a contract but salary not received due to bankruptcy. It is quite clear that under the Act one may be employed even though he may receive no remuneration.
Decision A-0560.94
Full Text of Decision A-0560.94
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
interruption of earnings |
bankruptcy |
receivership |
|
Summary:
Umpire had found that termination had occurred upon the bankruptcy and not at the end of the operations. Upheld by the FCA who found on the facts that agreement between the trustee continuing the operations and the union constituted a new contract of employment and therefore a different employment.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
earnings |
income |
wage protection program |
|
earnings |
allocation |
from week of layoff |
|
earnings |
allocation |
applicability |
|
Decision 25305
Full Text of Decision 25305
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
interruption of earnings |
bankruptcy |
receivership |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0560.94
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
earnings |
income |
wage protection program |
|
earnings |
allocation |
from week of layoff |
|
earnings |
allocation |
applicability |
|
Decision 26075A
Full Text of Decision 26075A
summary
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
interruption of earnings |
bankruptcy |
receivership |
|
Summary:
Vacation pay allocated in anticipation of the employer going into liquidation and the closure of the mine. The claimant having been rehired by the liquidation continued to work, in effect for the same employer. He suffered no separation or interruption of earnings until he later separated from employment.
other summary
Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
earnings |
allocation |
from week of layoff |
|