| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
rationale |
|
|
Summary:
Not to apply 44(1) to the loss of employment during a benefit period would be difficult to reconcile with the obvious purpose of that provision not to permit that the funds of UI be used to subsidize a party to a labour dispute.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
while claiming ui |
|
Summary:
If Parliament had intended 44(1) to apply only to the loss of the last employment before the establishment of a benefit period, it would have said so as it has in s.41.
A claimant who, after losing a full-time job by reason of a shortage of work, holds a part-time job while receiving UI is disentitled to any benefit if he loses that part-time job by reason of a stoppage of work due to labour dispute.
Ss.44(1) may have been read by Umpire as not disentitling a claimant from UI he would have been entitled to if that employment had not been terminated due to the dispute. That interpretation would produce fair results but s.44 does not disentitle one ofonly a part of benefits.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
dual employment |
|
Summary:
As to the suggestions that 44(1) be read so as not to apply to persons having more than one employment and to persons working part-time, I fail to see why the normal meaning of the words used should be thus restricted.
Benefits not payable in respect of various employments one may have held in the past. When UI is paid to a claimant who held, either concurrently or successively, many different jobs, the Act does not provide for the division and allotment of the benefit between the various jobs.
