Heard at New Glasgow, Nova Scotia on August 10, 1999.
IN THE MATTER of the Employment Insurance Act
- and -
IN THE MATTER of a claim for benefits by
ANDREW W. DOWNES
- and -
IN THE MATTER of an appeal by the claimant to the Umpire
from the decision of a Board of Referees rendered at
New Glasgow, Nova Scotia on September 3, 1998.
DECISION
THE HONOURABLE W.J. GRANT, Q.C., UMPIRE:
This is an appeal by the claimant from the majority decision of a Board of Referees given at New Glasgow, Nova Scotia on September 3, 1998 dismissing the claimant's appeal from the decision of the Insurance Officer allocating certain earnings, and relating to monies paid to him by Brookville Transport Ltd. The minority decision allowed the claimant's appeal.
This appeal is under Section 115.2(c) of the Employment Insurance Act.
The claimant stated that for six weeks he was in a program with Brookville Transport where he was undertaking training as a driver. During that time, he was advanced $50.00 per day, which after deductions he said came to about $35.00 a day, as reimbursement for money which the claimant spent out of his own pocket for his meals.
This was termed a training allowance and was also termed training pay. There was apparently confusion about the training allowance and training pay and whether this was wages.
In Exhibit 7 these monies were shown as a training allowance and earnings. However it appears to me that if this was a reimbursement for monies actually spent for meals during this period then it would not be income it would not be earnings, but would be a return of money actually paid out by the trainee.
The majority decision hinged on information given to the claimant by people in the Commission Office. However it may well have been true, if the claimant had described the payment as being money extended to him to reimburse him for money he had paid out for his meals.
It may be argued that the claimant would have to eat in any event whether he was at home or on the road. A net of $35.00 per day to live on while driving a transport truck sometimes within the U.S.A., is certainly not unreasonable even if you consider what a person would have spent if not on the road by the nature of the employment.
I find the Board misinterpreted the payment to the claimant, and that as a meal allowance it should not be termed as earnings.
I remit the matter back to the Commission to treat the $35.00 per day as reimbursement of money spent by the claimant for meals and direct that they do their calculations on this basis.
I, therefore, allow the appeal and remit the matter back to the Commission for its consideration in deducting that sum from their calculations.
"W.J. Grant"
W. J. Grant - Umpire
PRESENT:
The Claimant appeared on his own behalf
For the Commission:
Diane Fall
Dated at Halifax, Nova Scotia
August 30, 1999