Unemployment Insurance Benefits Denial After Voluntary Termination Followed by Subsequent Employment Termination
Legislator-Zusammenfassung
KI-generiertA claimant appealed a decision by the unemployment insurance fund denying benefits due to insufficient contribution periods, where the claimant had been involuntarily unemployed following a period of voluntary termination of an employment relationship that had been terminated by notice after the claimant secured subsequent employment which was then also terminated. The court reasoned that the voluntary termination of the initial employment, even if followed by new employment, did not constitute involuntary unemployment, and therefore the previous contributions did not count toward satisfying the required contribution period for unemployment insurance benefits because the gap between the termination of the initial job and the start of the subsequent one, which was covered by the insurance, was deemed to be a self-inflicted interruption of insurance coverage for the purpose of meeting the prerequisite time under the relevant statute.
Legislator-Regeste
KI-generiertArt. 66 Abs. 1 BGG; Unemployment Insurance Benefits Denial After Voluntary Termination Followed by Subsequent Employment Termination: The court reasoned that the voluntary termination of the initial employment, even if followed by new employment, did not constitute involuntary unemployment, and therefore the previous contributions did not count toward satisfying the required contribution period for unemployment insurance benefits because the gap between the termination of the initial job and the start of the subsequent one, which was covered by the insurance, was deemed to be a self-inflicted interruption of insurance coverage for the purpose of meeting the prerequisite time under the relevant statute.
Schlagwörter
KI-generiertZitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen
KI-generiertVerwandte Entscheide
KI-generiertZentrale Rechtsfragen, extrahiert von Legislator
KI-generiertThe appellant is ordered to pay the court fees because the appeal was dismissed.
Volltext
\n \n \n \n \n
\n\n| | | |\n II 2023 17 |\n |\n \n\n
\n \n \n \n \n \n
\n\n| | | |\n |\n Entscheid vom 14. März 2023 |\n \n\n
\n \n \n \n
\n\n| | | |\n Besetzung |\n Dr.iur. Vital Zehnder, Vizepräsident |\n \n|\n |\n Dr.oec. Andreas Risi, Richter Dr.iur. Frank Lampert, Richter |\n \n|\n |\n MLaw Manuel Gamma, Gerichtsschreiber |\n \n\n
\n \n \n \n \n \n
\n\n| | | |\n Parteien |\n A.________, \n Beschwerdeführer, |\n \n|\n |\n gegen |\n
\n|\n |\n Unia Arbeitslosenkasse, Kompetenzzentrum D-CH West, Monbijoustrasse 61, Postfach 3398, 3001 Bern, \n Vorinstanz, |\n
\n\n
\n \n \n \n \n \n
\n\n| | | |\n Gegenstand |\n Arbeitslosenversicherung (Erfüllung der Beitragszeit) |\n \n\n
\n \n
Sachverhalt: