Facts
[J.], born in 1955, has been employed part-time on-call as an instructor at [M.] since January 1, 2009. By decision dated February 7, 2012, the Unia unemployment insurance fund denied a claim for unemployment compensation from February 19, 2012 onwards, as there was no eligible loss of earnings.
[J.] had repeatedly received daily allowances from the unemployment insurance since February 19, 2010. The Administrative Court of the Canton of Schwyz dismissed J.'s appeal against this decision on August 17, 2012. [J.] then filed a public law appeal with the Federal Supreme Court, requesting that the matter be remanded to the unemployment insurance fund for examination of her claim for unemployment compensation.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It stated that in the case of an on-call employment relationship that was not voluntarily entered into after the loss of a full-time job, but out of necessity and to bridge unemployment, it is to be assumed that this is an involuntary interim solution. An insured person has then, by taking up an on-call employment, only done what they are obliged to do according to their duty to mitigate damages.
In the present case, however, the situation is to be assessed differently, as [J.] is now applying for the opening of the third benefit period based on the same on-call employment relationship with [M.], which she continues to have accounted for as interim earnings. Given the fact that [J.] has now been continuously performing this activity as an instructor for…