Legislator Rechtsprechung & Gesetzgebung
DE FR IT EN
In Legislator analysieren
II 2021 66 • VG SZ II 2021 66 KI-generiert

Unemployment Insurance Contribution Appeal: Employment Termination Proof

Geschäftsnummer II 2021 66
Gericht / Behörde
Rechtsordnung Schweiz · Kanton Schwyz (CH-SZ)
Entscheiddatum
Originalquelle öffnen Entscheidsuche-Spiegel Maschinenlesbares Markdown (.md)

Legislator-Zusammenfassung

KI-generiert

The case concerns an appeal challenging a decision by a lower court regarding a claim for unemployment insurance contributions, where the appellant argued that the employment relationship had ended before the period for which contributions were assessed. The court reasoned that the evidence failed to conclusively establish that the employment relationship had terminated before the relevant date, upholding the lower court's decision because the appellant did not sufficiently demonstrate the termination of the employment contract as required by law.

Legislator-Regeste

KI-generiert

Unemployment Insurance Contribution Appeal: Employment Termination Proof: The court reasoned that the evidence failed to conclusively establish that the employment relationship had terminated before the relevant date, upholding the lower court's decision because the appellant did not sufficiently demonstrate the termination of the employment contract as required by law.

Schlagwörter

KI-generiert
Beendigung des Arbeitsverhältnisses Arbeitslosenversicherung Arbeitslosigkeit Beitragsforderung Beschäftigungsbeihilfen Versicherungsverhältnis Erwerbsersatzordnung (Covid-19; Erwerbsersatz) | Erwerbsersatzordnung
KI-generiert
II 2020 51
Appeal Regarding Unemployment Benefits and Validity of Dismissal
II 2021 89
Unemployment Insurance Benefit Eligibility Appeal
II 2020 48
Appeal of Unemployment Benefit Cessation
II 2021 102
Unemployment Insurance Eligibility Appeal
II 2025 60
Unemployment Insurance Benefits Denial Upheld Due to Insufficient Proof of Salary Payments

Fragen Sie sich, wie dieser Entscheid auf Ihren Fall anwendbar ist?

Prüfen Sie diesen Entscheid zusammen mit Bundesrecht, kantonalen Erlassen, Kommentaren und Folgeentscheiden in Legislator AI.

Fall in Legislator öffnen →

Volltext

\n \n \n \n \n

\n\n| | | |\n II 2021 66 |\n |\n \n\n

\n \n \n \n \n

\n\n| | | |\n |\n Entscheid vom 21. Oktober 2021 |\n \n\n

\n \n \n \n \n \n

\n\n| | | |\n Besetzung |\n Dr.iur. Vital Zehnder, Vizepräsident |\n \n|\n |\n Dr.iur. Frank Lampert, Richter Dr.oec. Andreas Risi, Richter |\n \n|\n |\n lic.iur. Prisca Reichlin Brügger, Gerichtsschreiberin |\n \n\n

\n \n \n \n \n \n

\n\n| | | |\n Parteien |\n A.________ GmbH, St. Gallerstrasse 24, 8853 Lachen, \n Beschwerdeführerin, |\n \n|\n |\n gegen |\n \n|\n |\n GastroSocial Ausgleichskasse, Buchserstrasse 1, \n Postfach 2203, 5001 Aarau, \n Vorinstanz, |\n \n\n

\n