| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
rationale |
|
|
Summary:
The purpose was said to be the preservation of government neutrality during labour disputes and the avoidance of the inequity of using an employer's contribution to the UI fund to finance a strike against himself. This rationale has been criticized by some but remains nevertheless the policy basis.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
conditions required for disentitlement |
|
|
Summary:
It is argued that a proper interpretation of ss. 31(1) does not require that the first 3 events quoted in VALOIS (a labour dispute; causing a stoppage; and loss of employment) occur in the order stated. It suffices that all 3 be present. I am unable to agree with this view. (see CARON)
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
by reason of a stoppage |
|
Summary:
The Umpire erred when he asked whether claimants lost their job by reason of a labour dispute; they, of course, did. He should have asked whether they lost it by reason of a "stoppage of work" attributable to a labour dispute; they did not. They lost it in anticipation, not because, of a stoppage.
The second issue was said to be a factual one: the Umpire found "as a fact" that the loss of employment resulted from the stoppage of work. This is not a factual matter at all; it is a conclusion of law based on certain facts found by the Umpire. There is really no dispute with regard to the facts.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
It is argued that a proper interpretation of ss. 31(1) does not require that the first 3 events quoted in VALOIS ( labour dispute; dispute causing a stoppage; and loss of employment) occur in the order stated. It suffices that all 3 be present. I am unable to agree with this view. (see CARON)
Following GIONEST (quoted with approval) is AUBIN where, because an employer reserved the right to terminate the claimant's employment at any time by giving notice, it was held that the claimant was "not entitled to any employment and never enjoyed any". The Umpire, therefore, erred on this issue.
LÉTOURNEAU quoted with approval. If a person who resigns his position before a strike is not disentitled to benefits, then a fortiori a person who is laid off prior to a strike or lockout is also not disentitled to those benefits.
A case that is directly on all fours with this one is CUB_9830A (layoff one day before stoppage; s.31 does not refer to a loss in anticipation of a stoppage). This was exactly the situation in this case. I accept the analysis of the Umpire which is in complete accord with recent SC and FC cases.
The Umpire erred when he asked whether claimants lost their job by reason of a labour dispute; they, of course, did. He should have asked whether they lost it by reason of a "stoppage of work" attributable to a labour dispute; they did not. They lost it in anticipation, not because, of a stoppage.
Claimants laid off on Friday. Strike began next Monday. They did not have continuing employment following their layoff. The past (pattern of recalls) was little guide to their future. There was no recall date and no evidence that they would be recalled. A mere expectation is not enough (MORISSETTE).
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
purpose of ui system |
|
Summary:
In approaching the interpretation of the UI Act, generally one must keep in mind the advice of the SC in ABRAHAMS and in HILLS to favour a liberal intepretation. Thus, Courts are urged by the Supreme Court of Canada to support the claims of workers to benefits where the language permits a choice.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of facts |
|
Summary:
The second issue was said to be a factual one: the Umpire found "as a fact" that the loss of employment resulted from the stoppage of work. This is not a factual matter at all; it is a conclusion of law based on certain facts found by the Umpire. There is really no dispute with regard to the facts.
