Summary of Issue: Transaction

Decision A0579.07 Full Text of Decision A0579.07

Following the termination of the claimant's employment and the sale of the plant, the claimant received a lump sum payment originating from National Sea for contributions to a pension plan. The claimant was advised that the conclusion of the pension plan was effective following the sale of the plant. The Commission maintained that these contributions should be allocated persuant 36(9) of the EIR. According to the BOR, the earnings must be allocated in accordance with 36(19)(b) of the EIR because the conclusion of the pension plan was agreed to between the former employer and the employees. When the new owner took over the plant, the conclusion of the pension plan was not part of the contract discussions. The Umpire is satisfied that there was a causal connection between the conclusion of the pension, the sale of the plant and the termination of the employees. For these reasons, the decision of the BOR set aside and the Commission's appeal is allowed. Due to the connection between the termination of the pension plan and the sale of the property, the contributions must be considered earnings on separation from the former employer and should be allocated in accordance with 36(9) of the EIR. The main issue is if the payment made to the employee following the conclusion of the pension plan was caused by the sale of the plant or whether the conclusion up was an independent transaction as provided by 36(19)(b) of the EIR. The FCA concludes that the Umpire erred when he substituted his own view of the evidence for that of the BOR. The FCA confirmed that the BOR had sufficient evidence before it to conclude as it did.

Decision A0578.07 Full Text of Decision A0578.07

Following the termination of the claimant's employment and the sale of the plant, the claimant received a lump sum payment originating from National Sea for contributions to a pension plan. The claimant was advised that the conclusion of the pension plan was effective following the sale of the plant. The Commission maintained that these contributions should be allocated persuant 36(9) of the EIR. According to the BOR, the earnings must be allocated in accordance with 36(19)(b) of the EIR because the conclusion of the pension plan was agreed to between the former employer and the employees. When the new owner took over the plant, the conclusion of the pension plan was not part of the contract discussions. The Umpire is satisfied that there was a causal connection between the conclusion of the pension, the sale of the plant and the termination of the employees. For these reasons, the decision of the BOR set aside and the Commission's appeal is allowed. Due to the connection between the termination of the pension plan and the sale of the property, the contributions must be considered earnings on separation from the former employer and should be allocated in accordance with 36(9) of the EIR. The main issue is if the payment made to the employee following the conclusion of the pension plan was caused by the sale of the plant or whether the conclusion up was an independent transaction as provided by 36(19)(b) of the EIR. The FCA concludes that the Umpire erred when he substituted his own view of the evidence for that of the BOR. The FCA confirmed that the BOR had sufficient evidence before it to conclude as it did.

Decision A0580.07 Full Text of Decision A0580.07

Following the termination of the claimant's employment and the sale of the plant, the claimant received a lump sum payment originating from National Sea for contributions to a pension plan. The claimant was advised that the conclusion of the pension plan was effective following the sale of the plant. The Commission maintained that these contributions should be allocated persuant 36(9) of the EIR. According to the BOR, the earnings must be allocated in accordance with 36(19)(b) of the EIR because the conclusion of the pension plan was agreed to between the former employer and the employees. When the new owner took over the plant, the conclusion of the pension plan was not part of the contract discussions. The Umpire is satisfied that there was a causal connection between the conclusion of the pension, the sale of the plant and the termination of the employees. For these reasons, the decision of the BOR set aside and the Commission's appeal is allowed. Due to the connection between the termination of the pension plan and the sale of the property, the contributions must be considered earnings on separation from the former employer and should be allocated in accordance with 36(9) of the EIR. The main issue is if the payment made to the employee following the conclusion of the pension plan was caused by the sale of the plant or whether the conclusion up was an independent transaction as provided by 36(19)(b) of the EIR. The FCA concludes that the Umpire erred when he substituted his own view of the evidence for that of the BOR. The FCA confirmed that the BOR had sufficient evidence before it to conclude as it did.

Decision 67529 Full Text of Decision 67529

There is no evidence that showed a connection between the lump sum payment received by the claimant and the services she had previously rendered. All employees who met the condition for eligibility, whatever time the services were rendered, were entitled to the lump sum payment. There was necessarily a connection between employment and the entitlement to the lump sum payment but not in relation to services rendered. Application of paragraph 36(19)(b) of the Regulations. See also CUB 67528.

Decision 65888 Full Text of Decision 65888

The pension wind-up and subsequent refund or rebate was not a result of a termination of employment or bankruptcy but as a result of an agreement between the employer and the union which received approval of Provincial Commissioner of Pensions. Umpire agreed with the Board of referees' decision that the payment arose from a transaction and must be allocated pursuant to Regulation 35(19)(b).

Decision 53378 Full Text of Decision 53378

Collective agreement was signed on 17-01-2001 granting a lump sum of $1,000 a year for 1999 and 2000, calculated on the basis of the number of hours worked during these years. Amount allocated to the week of the event. BOR allowed the appeal, deciding that this was a retroactive pay increase. Decision overturned by the Umpire who, referring to the decision in CUB 41845, ruled that it was the signing of the collective agreement that created the right to be paid the lump sum.

Decision 53100 Full Text of Decision 53100

Bonus of $625 paid when agreement signed. Despite a tentative agreement was reached on March 31, the bonus could not be paid unless and until the agreement was ratified. Reference made to FCA A-1105.90.

Decision 41845 Full Text of Decision 41845

Argument made that the signing bonus did not arise from a "transaction" but from the performance of prior services. The employer stressed the fact that the entitlement to the payment was tied directly to the number of hours worked in the preceding year and hence was made in respect of services already performed by the claimant. While agreeing that the payment was tied to past performance, the Umpire noted that there was no entitlement to it when the services were performed. Rather, the payment "arises from" the agreement as it is the agreement that has created the entitlement. Commission's appeal allowed.

Decision 36387A Full Text of Decision 36387A

While the application was filed on 08-02-95 and the licence was surrendered a few days prior, a payment on account of real estate was issued to the claimant on 30-03-95. Umpire stated that the law is quite settled, claimant's earnings from real estate should be allocated to the week in which the transaction that gave rise to the earnings occured only when the Agreement of Purchase and Sale was completed, i.e., when the transaction was closed and property changed hands.

Decision 33339 Full Text of Decision 33339

In cases of real estate sales, transaction not completed until the closing, when the purchaser pays for the property earlier agreed upon, even when the commission earnings are payable when no services are performed by the sales agent in the week in which payment is made.

Decision 30561 Full Text of Decision 30561

Claimant's earnings from sale of real estate to be allocated to the weeks in which the transaction that gave rise to the earnings occurred i.e. only when the agreement of purchase and sale was completed, that is the transaction was closed and the property changed hands.

Decision 18360 Full Text of Decision 18360

Refer to: A-1105.90

Decision A-1105.90 Full Text of Decision A-1105.90

Bonus of $800 paid upon ratification of agreement. Clearly "earnings from employment". Ss. 58(3) and (18)(a) are cast in retrospective terms. Not applicable here. Payable whether or not she returned after maternity leave. Whether it arose from transaction is a finding of fact.

Decision 18836 Full Text of Decision 18836

As per agreement concluded on 23-10-87 all eligible employees on layoff are required to apply for the signing bonus. Claimant did not know about it until he returned to work in 12-87. The transaction in reg. 58(18)(b) did not occur until claimant applied for the bonus in 12-87.

Decision 17902 Full Text of Decision 17902

Claimant became entitled to $200 as a signing bonus upon the execution of a collective agreement. It was income arising out of his employment even if payment occurred during a layoff period. To be allocated to week of transaction, i.e. the week the agreement was signed.

Decision 12503 Full Text of Decision 12503

The word "transaction" in reg. 58(18)(b) includes all the acts necessary to make one entitled to payment. Signing bonus for agreement ratified on 13-10 conditional on claimant returning to work and this occurred 31-10. Transaction completed 31-10.

Decision A-0432.78 Full Text of Decision A-0432.78

The employer continued to issue to claimant his regular cheques during the illness and, in turn, claimant would endorse over his UI cheque to employer. This procedure can be said to be a "transaction" within the meaning of reg. 173(18)(b), now 58(18)(b).