| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
Should the disentitlement be discontinued when the employer subsequently shut down the project and laid them off? Counsel for claimant invited us to reverse this Court's finding in IMBEAULT. Despite the able arguments of counsel, we are unable to identify any basis for doing so.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
annual shutdown |
|
Summary:
Should the disentitlement be discontinued when the employer subsequently shutdown the project and laid them off? Counsel for claimant invited us to reverse this Court's finding in IMBEAULT. Despite the able arguments of counsel, we are unable to identify any basis for doing so.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
participation |
picket lines |
|
Summary:
Claimants advised by their union to honor the picket line. Should the disentitlement be discontinued when the employer, a few days later, shut down the project and laid them off? The question "Why were they unemployed after?" is irrelevant. No basis for ignoring IMBEAULT as per FC.
A genuine fear which would take a refusal to cross the picket line out of the characterization of participation is a matter of evidence for each claimant. The same facts giving rise to such fear in one case might not give rise to any in another. No reviewable error by Umpire.
