Summary of Issue: Lay Days *

Decision 74999 Full Text of Decision 74999

The Commission determined that the claimant has not been unemployed since his time-off periods were part of his work schedule and imposed a disentitlement. The employer had confirmed that all employees work a schedule of 21 days on, followed by seven days off, except the claimant, who worked a schedule of 21 days on, followed by 21 days off. His employer explained to him that there was not enough work for him to have the same schedule as the other employees. The claimant stated that it was not fair that he was not entitled to benefits because his periods of leave were longer than those of his co-workers and that given the tax that was deducted from his earnings and the cost of airfare to return to his family during his periods of time, he was earning only $330.00 a week. The Board of Referees finds that the claimant had to accept the company's conditions in order to keep his job and that he agreed to do work sharing. The appeal by the Commission is allowed by the Umpire.

Decision 72923 Full Text of Decision 72923

The claimant filed a benefit claim, established effective November 19, 2006. The Commission subsequently determined that the claimant was not unemployed during the period for which she was claiming benefits because the period of leave constituted part of her work schedule. The Commission imposed a disentitlement for the period between January 28 and June 23, 2007 which resulted in an overpayment. The employer indicated that a number of its employees, including the claimant, worked six or seven days a week between 5 a.m. and 5 p.m., performing very physically demanding tasks. That is why a schedule of one week of work followed by one week of leave was set up; it enabled employees to recover after a long week. The employer added that employees agreed to the schedule when they were hired. The appeal is dismissed.