Decision 19780

Summary:

Employed as electrician in the Canadian north. Permanent on-site employees were employed under the 9 and 3 week work schedule. Claimant shared his work with a partner working 9 weeks and then taking 9 weeks off. Held that 3 of the 9 weeks off come underss.10(4). [p._7-9] The reasoning of the Board implies that evidence of the requirement in ss.10(4) that a lay period be a result of having worked a greater number of hours than are normally worked in a week, must be found in the contract. Error of law. The actual practiceis relevant. [p._8]

---

Summary:

Electrician sharing his job: 9 weeks at work, 9 weeks off. His position is analogous to a teacher seeking work during a non-teaching period. His active job search must be directed at attempting to obtain work which he realistically can be expected to take: temporary work. [p._10] Electrician sharing his job, 9 weeks at work and 9 weeks off. Given the temporary nature of the self-imposed restriction, if there are virtually no opportunities of work, disentitlement is justified. His situation does not relieve him from the availability requirement. [p._11]

---

Summary:

Electrician sharing his job: 9 weeks at work, 9 weeks off. His position is analogous to a teacher seeking work during a non-teaching period. His active job search must be directed at attempting to obtain work which he realistically can be expected to take: temporary work. [p._10]

---

Summary:

The reasoning of the Board implies that evidence of the requirement in ss.10(4) that a lay period be a result of having worked a greater number of hours than are normally worked in a week, must be found in the contract. Error of law. The actual practiceis relevant. [p._8]

---

Summary:

Electrician sharing his job, 9 weeks at work and 9 weeks off. Claimant has stated that he did not carry out a job search. In light of this, the Board's implicit finding that he had proved his availability is capricious and should be overturned. [p._11]

---