Summary of Issue: While Claiming Ui

Decision 16675 Full Text of Decision 16675

Found a job working 5 hours a week while he received benefits and stopped because of a strike. The Board erred in law: it does not matter that the job is not insurable. In accordance with SCHOEN, no distinction should be made between this type of employment.

Decision 16555 Full Text of Decision 16555

Claimant had been on the job for 5 days only when lockout took place. While one can sympathize with him who took the job when sent to it by his union, even knowing it might be of short duration due to the dispute rather than perhaps being disqualified, appeal dismissed.

Decision 15967 Full Text of Decision 15967

In CUB 10481, the Umpire extended the token engagement discussed in ABRAHAMS to the facts of that case by asking whether such engagement should disentitle the claimant. He concluded that it should not. I would have difficulty in accepting this proposition. Claimant works part-time while collecting UI. Belongs to Union. Member of grade or class of workers who were locked out. CUB 10481 examined and distinguished.

Decision 15879 Full Text of Decision 15879

Claimant laid off from full-time job but continued with part-time job while collecting UI. Many months later, he loses his part-time job due to a stoppage of work. BOLDT and SCHOEN referred to.

Decision 15087 Full Text of Decision 15087

As an employee of a caisse populaire for 2 days a week while receiving benefits, she believes that the work stoppage should not deprive her of her partial right to UI. This argument was already carefully considered in SCHOEN and was rejected.

Decision 13734 Full Text of Decision 13734

He had worked at that part-time employment for 16 months. Earnings were reported on cards following lay-off from full-time employment. At the time the stoppage of work commenced this was the sole employment held by him and, therefore, he is clearly disentitled under 31(1).

Decision 12987 Full Text of Decision 12987

Laid off full-time but continues part-time elsewhere while on UI. Then locked out; directly interested. Properly disentitled from any benefit. SCHOEN referred to. Inclined to allow as in CUBs 10481, 11475 and 12753 but here not token employment and bound by BOLDT.

Decision 12753 Full Text of Decision 12753

Electrician laid off from main employment on 17-8. Began evening teaching work in Sept. 6 to 9 hours a week while on benefit. Teachers on strike 17-10. FC and SC judgments examined. Loss of token employment or minor occupation is not the loss of "his" employment.

Decision 12728 Full Text of Decision 12728

While on benefit, claimant accepted to teach one course for 3 hours per week. Work stoppage occurred in the 6th week and claimant disentitled from next working day. Found to be of same grade or class as full-time teachers.

Decision A-0398.85 Full Text of Decision A-0398.85

After being terminated full-time, found part-time work while collecting UI. Part-time job then struck. This has been the subject of adverse comment by this Court. Insupportable on any rational appreciation of the policy of the Act. It is nevertheless the law.

Decision 11475 Full Text of Decision 11475

Second, since the loss of employment which gave rise to his initial claim in 12-83 was not caught by s.31, it is unjust to apply it in respect to the loss on 2-1-85 of his secondary employment accepted 20-11-84 to destroy his eligibility. One is not allowed to refuse suitable employment while on benefits. Claimant did what was required of him. He reported for work and then learned of the dispute. To now disqualify him would be plainly unjust, yet a strict reading of 31 appears to permit such conclusion.

Decision 11300 Full Text of Decision 11300

Caught in vicious circle: if refused offer of employment, risked disqualification; if accepted, risked strike. Worked there 1 1/2 weeks and there was strike. SCHOEN applies regardless of whether it was full-time employment for indefinite period.

Decision 09844A Full Text of Decision 09844A

Accepted a job while receiving benefit and work stoppage occurred after 3 days of work. According to his counsel, s. 44 should not apply since income was deducted under 26(2).

Decision 09801 Full Text of Decision 09801

Claimant on UI hired to commence as a probationary employee the day following the strike vote. Premises struck 3 days later. Held to be directly interested.

Decision A-0140.81 Full Text of Decision A-0140.81

Teacher teaching part-time while receiving benefit from September to February, went on strike in February. Decision she was not entitled upheld by Umpire. Application to reverse judgment dismissed by the FC.

Decision A-0090.81 Full Text of Decision A-0090.81

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.

Decision A-0006.80 Full Text of Decision A-0006.80

Accepted a part-time job and continued to receive benefit until stopped working because of strike. No vested rights because of 40(1). Wrong to believe that only initial employment may disentitle claimant. Case dismissed by FC without comment.