Summary of Issue: Following Recall

Decision 26891 Full Text of Decision 26891

Terminated 27-9-91 when plant closed. Severance pay received 11-10-91. Returned to work 5-11-91 as part of a clean-up crew at the same hourly wage. Worked until 17-7-92. CUBs 17529 and 23693 referred to. Separation occurred 27-9-91. Allocation not to be interrupted by subsequent employment.

Decision 26464 Full Text of Decision 26464

Supervisor of security programs. End of operations; severance pay received.Was recalled to work 16 days later, as a security officer, and worked for 7 days. CUB 23693 examined. Held that this did not have the effect of extending the allocation of the severance pay.

Decision 26012 Full Text of Decision 26012

Separation monies allocated from date of separation in 1-92. Allocation revised following claimant's recall by same employer from 4-92 to 8-92. The Board did not err in law when it ruled that the initial allocation of the monies should not be amended pursuant to ss. 58(9).

Decision 24901 Full Text of Decision 24901

Plant closed in 12-90. Severance pay received while reemployed from 14-1-91 to 6-91 by a subsidiary 100% owned by last employer. The question is whether the allocation should be handled concurrently rather than consecutively during the weeks of employment. I am in accord with CUB_20126.

Decision 23693 Full Text of Decision 23693

Some time after being paid termination monies, claimant was called back by the same employer to do contract work. Held that salary arising out of new employment does not have the effect of delaying the allocation of termination monies, since ss. 58(9) refers to earnings from "that employment".