| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
compensatory leave |
|
|
Summary:
I agree there simply is no evidence, on the record, of the purpose for the crew rotation. In the absence of that evidence, where the claimant has regularly worked a greater number of hours, days or shifts, ss. 42(4) [now 10(4)] generally applies so that he is deemed to have worked a full week.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| fishing |
lay days |
|
|
Summary:
It is urged that there is no proportionality between time worked and time off or between wages earned and hours worked to justify the application of the lay day provision of ss. 42(4) to fishermen on crew share. That argument goes to the fairness of the provision and relates to legislative policy.
Ss. 42(4) [now ss. 10(4) of the Act] is generally applicable to claimants under Part IV of the Regulations relating to benefits and, in my view, it is not excepted from application to fishermen by the terms of Part V.
