= J arte se fe 10 THE WESTERN CANADIAN LUMBER WORKER SEE EI FS oY ERTS a most glaring example. Claimants are ex- pected to travel from Kelsey Bay and Gold River to Victoria, a distance of 250 miles, to appear before a Board of Referees. New Westminster serves the Fraser Valley to beyond Hope, so the same circumstances prevail. The end result is that many ap- pellants are prevented from making a per- sonal appearance. It is our position that appearance in person before the Board is of paramount importance. We suggest that the services of a Board of « Referees be available to hear appeals of Claimants who live in distant places. This could be accomplished by creating more Boards or by creating travelling Boards. of Referees, the latter being the most logical. ELDERLY WORKERS We are concerned about the plight of many of our elderly workers, who are available and capable of performing many more years of satisfactory performance but who are compelled by company policy, pension provisions, or other reasons, to retire from that employment. This group of workers, and with particular reference to the age group of 65-70, are subject to the same tests of availability in accordance with Regulations 145 (9), ‘‘by making reasonable and customary hardship on this group because as we all know, em- ployers are not at all likely to hire people in this age group when younger people are available. We suggest that there should be estab- lished a special provision for these people so that they would be automatically entitled to a benefit period, directly related to their years . of employment service. SICK BENEFITS If the principle of payment of benefits for unemployment periods while sick, injured or in quarantine is to be maintained, then those advantages should extend to Major Attach- ment Claimants whose claims have con- tinued into the extended benefit period, etc. The present legislation which establishes eligibility only to those claims in the initial benefit period, work a hardship on workers who are employed in an intermittent voca- tion. (Loggers, construction workers, etc.). These workers whose claim “year” is already established are too often caught in the provision which does not allow payments of sick benefits in the Extended or Re-Estab- lished Benefit periods. We suggest that these restrictive provisions be removed and the principle established under the previous Act be estab- lished in its place. We take strong exception to the admini- stration of that section relating to illness, injury, or quarantine. While there is no objec- tion to the requirement that a medical certifi- cate showing proof of illness be produced, we do disagree with the provision of a Medical Advisor whose authority. overrides that certificate. We understand there is a yardstick called No. 288 that is used by the Medical Advisor. The Medical Advisor incidentally is Regional and National. By the use of this “yardstick” these Advisors rule that a certain illness, e.g., hernia operation, requires or merits a certain number of weeks’ benefits. After the elapse of this papuites t time benefits cease. aaweeey tween eww We contend that cases differ for any serious illness; one individual recovers more quickly than another so that the attending doctor’s Certificate should prevail. We fail to see how a “Medical Advisor’ who never examines the patient can make a determina- tion as to how long that patient is required to be off work. We suggest that the worker’s own doctor alone can or should certify as to the period required for recovery. - There are a number of aggravating policies established in the operation of the Act, which are mostly supported by Regulations which we Said earlier are in complete contradiction to the principles and objectives of the Act. We will briefly enumerate just a few of them. REGULATIONS 172 and 173 Many problems arise from the implementa- tion of these Regulations. Provisions con- tained in these Regulations are most unfair and detrimental to workers who have a history of long and industrious service to an employer. Long service employees who receive from their employer separation pay in the sum of, say, several months’ salary, which they have earned at a rate of so much time for each year worked, are most unfairly dealt with. They are required to refrain from collecting unemploy- ment insurance benefits until they have used up this money. That is, they are considered to be on the payroll of that employer for the number of weeks required, at their normal rate of pay, to use up this amount of separa- tion pay. Similarly, unemployed workers who have earned Vacation Pay calculated on a per- centage basis of wages earned, must also refrain from collecting Unemployment Insur- ance benefits until they have exhausted this Vacation Pay, again allocated to the number of weeks at their weekly rated pay, required to use up that amount of money. Probably the most vicious and aggravating of these Regulations appears as Regulation 173 (17), which states, and we quote, “Retroactive increases in salary or wages shall be Miser to the Weer in which they are paid.” This means that a Claimant who_ has worked several months or any length of time, while a renewal of a union contract is being negotiated and who is laid off before a settle- ment of the contract is achieved, is punished. It has many times occurred that a worker, in such circumstances, has been penalized a week or more of benefit simply because he was on claim at the time the retroactive wage was paid. By all methods of reasoning this retro- active money was wages that were earned during his period of employment and by no stretch of imagination should such money be applied to curtail his benefit pence: SECTION 57 This Section legislates against workers bona fidely employed in forestry, logging and lumbering. It is not unusual in the forest products industry for an employee to have worked less — than twenty-five (25) days in a year for an employer. Working in the forest products industry is _ prove “unjust dismissal or discharge”. Alte an occupation from which tens of thousa of workers derive their living therefo propose that FORESTRY, LOGGING | LUMBERING be deleted from the said 57 and made insurable employment elimin, ing the PRESENT EXCEPTIONS. PROPOSED LEGISLATION We have noted that proposed amendmen to the Act are now before Parliament ai while our information at this time is ver limited, we are opposed to amendments tha will mandatorily disqualify a claiman rts because he was (a) discharged or (b) he n voluntarily terminated, and (c) that he mu be re-employed for eight weeks before he could qualify for insurance benefits. We believe this type of restrictive legisla tion is not needed and will work a hardshj on thousands of workers. There is no way in which a large segment of the work force ca nately, no person should be forced to wo rf under intolerable conditions. Many example could be given. GENERAL : In general there are a few items the should be considered. We believe that A Advisory Boards, such as were in operatio ®) under previous legislation, served a valuabh purpose. These Boards met periodically a acted as a sounding board for both la and management. We suggest that these be | again established. The feelings of all! segments of society could be quickly ’ brought to the attention of U.I.C. authorities | by the functioning of such committees. The functions and malfunctions of the Act and it: administration could be rapidly exposed t the light and conveyed to the point where. corrections are necessary they could & quickly made. 4 We are of the opinion that the whole seri of Regulations should now be reviewed, wi the purpose in mind of making a determin tion, after experience with the use of whether or not they are serving the purpe¢ intended when such Regulations devised. ia We believe that since the Unemployme Insurance Act is typed as social legislatio then it should be administered with com passion. There is too much effort expended | hewing exactly to the written word, al forgetting the social aspects that are, A necessity, inherent in such legislation. Too many honest, industrious wo people are completely frustrated and illusioned under the present administra practices. “SUPPORT