Teaching

Contract of Employment - Non-Teaching Period

CUB 63254 Umpire Decision - The claimant was employed at a private school on a one year contract that she desired that expired June 30, 2003. She was re-hired on July 22 for the following school year. The Commission now concedes that both it and the Board of Referees erred in failing to apply the Commission's policy that in the case of 10 month contracts, when a contract for the next teaching year is signed during the non-teaching period, the disentitlement should be imposed as of the date of signature of the new contract. The appeal was allowed in part.
Appellant: Daniela Di Manno
Date: 2005

CUB 65192 Umpire Decision - The Board reviewed the evidence and in a majority decision found that most of the claimant's earnings came from her employment as a substitute teacher and that her contract could be terminated upon the return of the teacher being replaced. The majority of the Board allowed the claimant's appeal. The minority would have dismissed the claimant's appeal because, even though she was teaching only part time and on a substitute basis, she had a contract for a specified period and could therefore not benefit from the exception provided in section 33(2)(b) of the Regulations. The Commission argued that the claimant could not benefit from the exception provided for in section 33(2)(b) of the Regulations even though she had taught as a substitute teacher because she still had contract with her employer. In the absence of a finding of fact sufficiently clear to determine the nature of the claimant's employment, it was impossible to decide whether section 33(2)(b) of the Regulations could apply. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2006

CUB 70576 Umpire Decision - The claimant worked until June 30, 2006 at which point her teaching contract expired. She was not offered a new contract and was put on the recall list at which point the claimant found work at a golf course for the summer. On July 17, 2006, the employer sent the claimant a new contract for a 60% temporary teaching position, but the claimant did not receive the contract until August 10, 2006 at which time she signed the contract and sent it back. The position of the claimant is such that she was not under a teaching contract from the period of June 30 until August 28 when the new contract came into place. The Board of Referees agreed with the position of the claimant. However, the Commission held the position that the claimant was entitled to benefits until she has accepted a new position, and was therefore disentitled from August 10 - 28, 2006. The issues, therefore, was whether or not the claimant was unemployed up until the point that she begun working under the new contract. The Board agreed with the claimant that she was unemployed up until the point that she started under the new contract. The board stated that the situation at hand was the same as a situation in which an employee is awaiting a recall with a recall date that is fixed by a new agreement. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2008

CUB 70567 - The claimant was a teacher whose contract ended June 30, 2006 and she did not begin teaching under a new contract as a 66% temporary teacher until August 28, 2006. She had been offered a new contract August which she signed on August 10, 2006. The Commission claimed that she was under a contact as of the date she signed and was no longer entitled to benefits. The Board determined that the claimant had been entitled to her benefits until she began working and earning a salary under her new contract. The Umpire said this situation is analogous to the situation of an employee awaiting a recall with a recall date being fixed by a new agreement. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2008

CUB 76296 Umipre Decision - The claimant was a substitute teacher until June 29, 2010. She worked on a day to day basis with no benefits, holiday pay or vacation pay. She had been filling in for a person who was off for illness. She did get so many sick days after so much time served. The Board found as a fact by virtue of the claim¬ant being a substitute teacher that she is eligible for benefits and that the claimant was a free agent up to August 1, 2010 when she started a contract with the school board. The Umpire finds that the claimant was hired to fill in for a person on sick leave and was not hired for a pre-determined time. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2010

CUB 76308 Umipre Decision - The claimant, who was employed as an Early Childhood Educator, was employed in teaching and thereby not entitled to benefits for any week that falls in any non-teaching period. The Commission concluded the claimant was a teacher within the meaning of section 33 of the Regulations. The Board disagreed, concluding that the claimant was not a teacher but rather a permanent support staff employee and the appeal was unanimously allowed. The Umpire found that the claimant was in fact not a teacher within the meaning of Employment Insurance Act and Regulations and therefore not disentitled to benefits during the non-teaching period. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2010

Teacher - Defined

CUB 56736 Umpire Decision/A-215-03 Judgment Of The Federal Court Of Appeal - The Regulations do not define the terms “ teacher” or “ teaching” , it only defines “ teaching” as an occupation. The claimant had been employed for 12 consecutive years as a music teacher during the normal teaching year since that is when the students were present. The Board decided that the claimant did not have the same qualifications, did not belong to the same organization and did not exercise the same responsibilities as other teachers. Therefore, the Board could come to no other reasonable conclusion than the claimant's situation was different from that of other teachers. The Umpire in this case states:

“ The claimant is certainly not a teacher within the meaning of the Ontario legislation. He is legally precluded from exercising many of the responsibilities of a teacher. He is legally precluded from membership in and representation by the organizations which are required to represent teachers.”

The Umpire felt that the Board had considerable reason to make the decision that it did due to Ontario provincial law regarding teachers. It is fairly reasonable to conclude both factual and legal that the claimant was not a teacher within the meaning of the Employment Insurance Act and Regulations. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2003

CUB 57975 Umpire Decision - The Commission is appealing the decision from the Board that allowed the claimant's appeal stating that he could not be paid benefits from July 1 to August 31, 2001, as no benefits can be paid to teachers during a non-teaching period. The facts in this case are that the claimant was employed by the Toronto District Catholic Board as a music teacher and that his employment was covered by a collective agreement between the School Board and the Association of Catholic Music Instructors. Under the agreement referred to by the Board, the claimant is paid hourly. While he was only working ten months of the year, he does not work under contract that provides for an annual salary. The purpose of section 33 of the Regulations is to prevent teachers from collecting benefits during non-teaching periods where earnings are payable to them pursuant to their contracts.The claimant did not enjoy continuity of employment and there was a break of the continuity of his employment at the end of the school year. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2003

CUB 60134 Umpire Decision - The claimant, Carol Woolsey, is appealing the decision that stated that she was not eligible for benefits on the grounds that no benefits can be paid to a teacher during a non-teaching period in accordance with subsection 33(2) of the EI Regulations. The claimant had applied for benefits on June 30, 2000 after she was laid off from her job as a continuing education instructor with School District No.72 of Campbell River, BC. The Commission contacted the claimant via a letter dated July 26, 2000 that they could not pay her benefits for the period of July 3, 2000 to August 18, 2000, as no benefits can be paid to teachers during a non-teaching period. The claimant appealed this decision to the Board on the grounds that she was not a teacher but rather an educational assistant. A teacher is anyone who has undergone specialized training and has the necessary qualifications which allows them to be called teachers. The term does not, contrary to the Commission's submission, include individuals, such as the claimant, who help or assist teachers. For these reasons Umpire Rouleau felt that the Board erred in law and fact. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant: Carol Woolsey
Date: 2004

CUB 77188Umipre Decision - The claimant worked in a daycare centre in a school but she did not work as a teacher. She provided after school care to children, but was not employed during teaching hours. She was paid on an hourly basis, not annually like teachers. The commission argued that she had a teaching degree and that her role was to teach children after school. Although this position did not require a teaching certificate, she worked as a teacher within a daycare centre. It was determined although the claimant had teaching credentials, she was not employed as a teacher and entitled to benefits during a non-teaching time. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant: Commission
Date: 2011