Decision A-0434.82

Summary:

S.41-43 are provisions in a statute the object of which is to establish a scheme of providing UI for insured persons who through no fault of their own lose their employment. It is not intended to benefit those who elect not to be employed or who lose their employment by their own actions.

---

Summary:

[Umpire Dubinsky's view that misconduct has to do with malfeasance connected with work itself]. Expressions used in 41 not technical and not to be approached as if technical. Participation in illegal strike is misconduct in relation to employment.

---

Summary:

Participation of claimant in the illegal strike of hospital workers was her own misconduct... Misconduct by many is no less one's misconduct.

---

Summary:

The fact employer did not dismiss claimant until some time after end of strike, that employer referred to other circumstances involved in decision to dismiss clt and absence of evidence of what such circ. were were all relevant in deciding whether dismissal due to misconduct. Umpire was of the view that claimant was fired to be made an example of. This does not make the dismissal any the less dismissal for participation in the illegal strike.

---

Summary:

The strike was illegal in that it was in violation of Ontario legislation. The fact that the collective agreement had expired before the strike began appears irrelevant to whether strike illegal. Strike being illegal, claimant's participation in it would be misconduct on her part in the ordinary sense of the term. It would also be misconduct in relation to her employment. The fact that many persons misconduct themselves does not make misconduct any less one's own.

---

Summary:

The fact that the collective agreement had expired was irrelevant to whether the strike was illegal, being in violation of the Ontario legislation. The Board, having based its conclusion that the loss of work was not due to misconduct on an irrelevant consideration, erred in law.

---