Decision 77631

Case Number Claimant Judge Language Decision date
Decision 77631   Lagacé/Lagacé  English 2011-08-16
Decision Appealed Appellant Corresponding Case
Allowed  No Commission  -


Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment  Period of Leave  Alternating work/leave  

Summary:

The claimant explained that his customary schedule comprised 14 days on duty followed by 7 days off. As of September 2010, he became eligible for parental leave and opted to allocate it over 5 weeks of parental benefits, thus providing an income for the weeks off over and above those specified in his work contract. Since such a schedule allowed the claimant to work only 7 days out of the 14 specified in his contract, he wrongly surmised that he was not being paid for his week of leave. He therefore decided to report as being available to work during his week of leave, with the ultimate objective of collecting regular EI benefits during those weeks. The Commission advised the claimant that it could not pay him the benefits requested, on the grounds that his weeks of leave are part of his work schedule. Subsection 11(1) of the Act stipulates that a week of unemployment for a claimant is a week in which he does not work a full week. However, the Act also provides for an exception when there exists, as in this case, an alternation between periods of work and periods of leave. Thus, subsection 11(4) of the Act is careful to specify that an insured person is deemed to have worked a full working week during each week that falls wholly or partly in a period of leave if: (a) in each week the insured person regularly works a greater number of hours, days or shifts than are normally worked in a week by persons employed in full-time employment; and (b) the person is entitled to the period of leave (as is the case here) under an employment agreement to compensate for the extra time worked. For these reasons, the Umpire upholds the Commission’s appeal and rescinds the decision rendered by the BOR.


Date modified: