Summary of Issue: Premises

Decision 20493 Full Text of Decision 20493

M.C. Graphics Inc. of Saskatoon. The Board rejected the argument that the pressroom should be considered as a separate workshop from that of the lithographers or the administrative staff. I think that both in fact and in law the Board reached the correct conclusion.

Decision 15464A Full Text of Decision 15464A

Claimant's employer was not a party to the dispute but a contractor for CIP who was represented by Forest Industrial Relations. Claimant was a union member. Laid off 18-7-86. Not recalled 18-8 because employer perceived a dispute at "his" workplace (union's patrol boats).

Decision 16592 Full Text of Decision 16592

The premises at the commencement of the dispute must be considered as one premise at different areas of which sawmill and pulp mill operations of B.C. Forest Products were carried out. Subsequently a fence was built between them and access sought by a different road.

Decision A-0800.87 Full Text of Decision A-0800.87

Striking members of another union, employed elsewhere by employer, established pickets at claimant's place of work. Question raised as to whether there had been a labour dispute at claimant's place at all. S. 31 requires a dispute at premises. We express no opinion on the point.

Decision 11295A Full Text of Decision 11295A

Refer to: A-0800.87

Decision 15465 Full Text of Decision 15465

Claimant's union was not striking claimant's employer, and never established a picket line at his place. He was laid off because employer feared secondary picketing but did not wait to ascertain whether it would occur. No dispute at claimant's place, so44(1) does not apply.

Decision 15114 Full Text of Decision 15114

Trucker contends premises in 44(1) must be limited to employer's place rather than where actually working. I cannot agree. While not employed by company but by sub-contractor, at least part of employment occurred at struck premises where he regularly delivered logs.

Decision 13894 Full Text of Decision 13894

Question of premises not raised. Construction worker employed at a struck plant. The claimant was properly considered to have lost his employment because of the work stoppage at the mine. [p. 7]

Decision 13713 Full Text of Decision 13713

The purchasing department is an integral part of the business, an airline company, so 31(3) would not seem to apply as it would not normally be carried on as a separate business.

Decision 12102 Full Text of Decision 12102

Place of work of a delivery driver is home base and not route or truck itself; production employees in bakery on same premises and cannot rely on 31(3). [pp. 9-10] 4 factors to be examined in deciding whether premises separate: absence of operational integration, proximity or relative position of premises, nature of dispute and nature of 2 branches of work claimed to be separate. [p. 8] Not sufficient that work be separate; must still be commonly carried on as separate businesses in separate premises under 31(3). [pp. 11-12] Burden on claimant to prove that employment of group of employees to which he belonged constituted branch of work separate from work of other employees within meaning of 31(3). [p. 6] Subs. 31(3) is not an exception to 31(1); merely clarifies what is meant by place of work, just as subs. 2(1) defines labour dispute. [p. 6]

Decision 11446 Full Text of Decision 11446

Service in cafeteria not needed during strike, so was advised the claimant's employer, a canteen operator, by the struck company and claimant was laid off. [question of premises not raised]

Decision A-1198.82 Full Text of Decision A-1198.82

Contractor's employees laid off because of strike between CIP and its employees. Where dispute relates to insured persons' working conditions, it must be said that it was at their place of employment. Leave to appeal to SC denied.

Decision A-0223.83 Full Text of Decision A-0223.83

Company operating 3 separate sawmills. Dispute existing at one of them but picket lines extended to all 3. Umpire held that the dispute was existing at the claimant's place. Decision set aside: no dispute at premises where claimant was employed.

Decision A-0162.80 Full Text of Decision A-0162.80

As a result of the judgment in A-425-79, the Umpire reconsidered this case and decided that the office and plant located in the same premises were not separate premises within the meaning of 44(3). Application for review dismissed by the FC.

Decision A-0657.79 Full Text of Decision A-0657.79

Construction of a recovery system carried out by QNS & Labrador Railway at Iron Ore. Lay-off to avoid problems during work stoppage at Iron Ore. Not work commonly carried on as separate in separate premises pursuant to 44(3).

Decision A-0421.79 Full Text of Decision A-0421.79

According to the Umpire, office and plant were two separate premises. Separate branches of work are not sufficient for 44(3) to apply; that work must also be commonly carried on as separate businesses in separate premises.