| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
conditions required |
|
|
Summary:
The Umpire correctly observed that claimant had to establish: (1) a layoff or separation from Labatt's; (2) 7 consecutive days without work for Labatt's; and (3) 7 consecutive days without earnings from Labatt's. [p. 4]
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
income |
applicability |
|
Summary:
Claimant was offered 3 options by the employer. Whether the result would have been different had she chosen option (b) need not be considered since, in fact, she chose option (c). [p. 5]
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
without services |
|
Summary:
Salary or severance pay? Employed with Labatt; chose to receive one year salary over 24 months rather than termination. Amount related to salary paid at same intervals while enjoying most benefits and accruing pension. All this presumes a continuing relationship. Reg. 58(4).
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
severance pay |
definition |
|
Summary:
Claimant, an employee of Labatt's, rather than termination chose to receive one year's salary over 24 months with full benefits. Contract held to be continuing. The money paid is clearly income and earnings. It cannot be severance pay under 57(3)(f). [p.8]
Quotes CUB 5466 with approval: "I know of no rule of law to the effect that an employee who is dismissed without notice is entitled to something called severance pay." [p. 7]
