DIGEST OF ADJUDICATION PRECEDENTS AA
AA-22 (06/11)
The claimant was determined to be unavailable for work and ineligible for benefits during the period under review.
ISSUE/DIGEST CODE Able & Available/AA 350.05
DOCKET/DATE Echols v. Board of Review, 676 N.E.2d 292 (1997)
AUTHORITY Section 500C-2 of the Act
TITLE Period of Ineligibility
SUBTITLE Holidays
CROSS REFERENCE MS 95.1, Construction of Statutes
The claimant drove a school bus pursuant to a contract between her employer, a private bus company, and a school district. On
December 19, she filed a claim for unemployment benefits, which was contested by the employer, on the grounds that she was not
available for work because the period for which she sought benefits was the school Christmas break.
HELD: Section 500C-2 provides that an individual shall be considered unavailable for work on days Awhich are holidays
according to the custom of his trade or occupation, if his failure to work on such day is a result of the holiday.@ This case is
indistinguishable from Quincy School District No. 172 v. Board of Review, 471 N.E.2d 1056 (1984). Although the employer in
that case was a school district, and not a private employer, in both cases, the claimant was a school bus driver. The reason for the
unemployment status in both situations was the same: the Christmas holidays are non-work periods in that line of work. The
claimant was considered unavailable for work, and therefore ineligible for benefits, during the holiday recess period.
ISSUE/DIGEST CODE Able & Available/AA-350.05
DOCKET/DATE Leonard v. IDES, 311 Ill.App.3d 354, 243 Ill.Dec. 937, 724 N.E.2d 536 (3rd Dist.,
11/23/99)
AUTHORITY Section 500(C)(2)
TITLE Period of Ineligibility
SUBTITLE General
CROSS-REFERENCE
The claimant drove a bus for a private bus company. Most of her driving involved busing children to school but she also trained
new drivers, taught a defensive driving course and drove charter buses. During previous Christmas and spring break holidays, she
had remained employed with these other duties. During the week of spring break for which she had sought benefits and was
denied, she had driven a charter bus on two of the days. The employer required its laid off workers to remain available during
break periods in order to accept charter bus assignments. The employer also bused students from schools having break periods
different from the claimant=s, which allowed it to operate year-round.
HELD: Section 500(C)(2) provides in part that an individual Ashall be considered to be unavailable for work...on days which are
holidays according to the custom of his trade or occupation, if his failure to work on such day is a result of the holiday.@ In the
instant case, where the facts showed that the claimant had other duties besides busing children to school and had performed other
duties during prior holiday periods, the Christmas and spring break periods were not Aholidays@ within the custom of the claimant=s
trade. The court distinguished the instant case from Quincy School District No. 172 v. Board of Review, 471 N.E.2d 1056 (1984)
and Echols v. Department of Employment Security, 676 N.E.2d 292 (1997) on the basis that in those cases the claimants/bus
drivers= sole function was to bus children to school unlike the claimant in this case who had other duties besides busing school
children.
ISSUE/DIGEST CODE Able and Available/AA 375.05
DOCKET/DATE ABR-85-5971/1-16-86
AUTHORITY Sections 239 and 500C of the Act
TITLE Receipt of Other Payments
SUBTITLE Effect Upon Eligibility
CROSS-REFERENCE AA 10 5.05, Contract Obligation
The claimant, a Janitor, worked for his employer for 36 years, until his position was eliminated, in March, 1985. Still, the
employer intended to keep him on the payroll for 2 months more, during which time the claimant would not be required to sign in
or perform any work; this, the employer explained, would be its "farewell gift" to the claimant for his "long and faithful years of
service."
