Summary of Issue: Layoff Or Separation

Decision A-0415.95 Full Text of Decision A-0415.95

The allocation of termination benefits has the effect of postponing the benefit period but it does not prolong the previous employment which, by definition, has been lost.

Decision 19853 Full Text of Decision 19853

Claimant contended that he was not laid off but rather that he resigned. He may not have been laid off but his resignation clearly constituted a separation from employment as that term is used in reg. 58(13)(b).

Decision 19766 Full Text of Decision 19766

In the context of the Act, a suspension without pay is equivalent to a loss of employment or a separation from employment. As a result, monies received as settlement must be allocated from the week of separation (suspension without pay) rather than fromfinal termination. [p._9]

Decision A-0516.88 Full Text of Decision A-0516.88

Dictionary definitions of layoff do not apply to 2(1). When that context is fully appreciated it may be seen that by utilizing "layoff" and "separation from employment", Parliament did not intend that either should embrace a reduction in working hours such as here.

Decision 15069 Full Text of Decision 15069

Last day of work: 17-12-85; vacation pay until 31-1-86. In order to determine whether there was termination of employment on 17-12, we must consider whether he continued to receive fringe benefits after 17-12-85. This is an indication. The fact that premiums were deducted is not sufficient.

Decision 11220 Full Text of Decision 11220

Dismissal changed to 3 month suspension by tribunal. Insured did not lose employment; deserved only suspension. On other hand, suffered interruption of earnings and there was interruption of earnings within meaning of subs. 2(1).

Decision 1554080 Full Text of Decision 1554080

Manitoba teacher who went on maternity leave in March. While the contract was not brought to an end when she left her work, she having sought only a leave of absence, there was a separation from employment.

Decision A-0267.77 Full Text of Decision A-0267.77

Manitoba teacher who went on maternity leave in March. While the contract was not brought to an end when she left her work, she having sought only a leave of absence, there was a separation from employment. Refer to summary indexed under Supreme Court decision 1554080.

Decision 26930 Full Text of Decision 26930

Rilar Lumber owned 51% of Cashway Centre after the sale. Claimant received a retiring allowance, continued to work without interruption, no change in duties or location. Substantial changes in salary and fringe benefits. Held that there was a separation from employment for the purpose of ss. 58(9).

Decision 16502 Full Text of Decision 16502

Medallion and Award were really part of the same employer, namely Sutton Group insurance which covers 12 offices. It is a franchised operation, each office being incorporated separately. I am inclined to the view that each franchise is an independent employer.

Decision 13433 Full Text of Decision 13433

Claimant was a full-time employee of Dominion Stores until 7-12. He states that from 8-12 he worked for A & P. Expressions "that employer" and "that employment" emphasized. If he worked for a different employer from 8-12 onward then he has had an interruption of earnings. [p. 4]

Decision 12748 Full Text of Decision 12748

Voluntary leaving at issue, not interrupton of earnings. Claimant was transferred to U.S.A. The Company for which he worked, in Minnesota, was at least an affiliate of the London Company, if not technically the same employer. Both were owned by the sameprincipals.

Decision A-0242.75 Full Text of Decision A-0242.75

Change of corporation. While employees were doing the same things in the same business, their employer was after 1-3 the new corporation. They were not employed by the same employer within the meaning of ss.149(2).

Decision 17293 Full Text of Decision 17293

Refer to: A-0559.89

Decision A-0559.89 Full Text of Decision A-0559.89

Pastor whose duties did not change whether paid or not and the only criteria for paying him was availability of funds. It seems clear he was never laid off. He was expected to continue to do exactly what he had done while being paid and he, in fact, didprecisely that.

Decision 12659 Full Text of Decision 12659

Interruption of earnings does not mean simply interruption of salary, but also interruption of employment. Even though received only room and board in return, insured had not ceased to be employed by motel in off season.

Decision 12135 Full Text of Decision 12135

Under 2(1)(n), interruption of earnings does not just mean absence of wages but also termination of employment.