Decision A-0594.00
Full Text of Decision A-0594.00
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
Case similar to that of Gilbert Mercier. See summary indexed under FCA A-0595.00
Decision A-0595.00
Full Text of Decision A-0595.00
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
The claimant, a seasonal wood scaler for Abitibi Consolidated, was unable to resume his employment on June 29, 1998 because of a labour dispute that had started on June 15, 1998. Declared not to be entitlted to benefits, on the basis of evidence provided by the employer concerning the possible date of return to work. The BOR reversed the decision, finding that no date of return to work had been established. The FCA upheld the decision by the BOR, stating that the Umpire had had no reason to substitute his own finding for that of the Board.
Decision A-0599.00
Full Text of Decision A-0599.00
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
Case similar to that of Gilbert Mercier. See summary indexed under FCA A-0595.00
Decision A-0596.00
Full Text of Decision A-0596.00
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
Case similar to that of Gilbert Mercier. See summary indexed under FCA A-0595.00
Decision A-0597.00
Full Text of Decision A-0597.00
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
Case similar to that of Gilbert Mercier. See summary indexed under FCA A-0595.00
Decision A-0593.00
Full Text of Decision A-0593.00
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
Case similar to that of Gilbert Mercier. See summary indexed under FCA A-0595.00
Decision 45668A
Full Text of Decision 45668A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
Case similar to that of Gilbert Mercier. See summary indexed under FCA A-0595.00.
Decision 45667A
Full Text of Decision 45667A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
Case similar to that of Gilbert Mercier. See summary indexed under FCA A-0595.00
Decision 45671A
Full Text of Decision 45671A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
Case similar to that of Gilbert Mercier. See summary indexed under FCA A-0595.00
Decision 45666A
Full Text of Decision 45666A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
Case similar to that of Gilbert Mercier. See summary indexed under FCA A-0595.00
Decision 45669A
Full Text of Decision 45669A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
Case similar to that of Gilbert Mercier. See summary indexed under FCA A-0595.00
Decision 45670A
Full Text of Decision 45670A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0595.00.
Decision 25122
Full Text of Decision 25122
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
Claimant had not received a recall notice as of the date the strike commenced. In fact, he was not recalled until a few months after. The Board did not believe the claimant had any employment to return to during the strike. That was a finding of fact entirely within the Board's jurisdiction.
Decision 21236
Full Text of Decision 21236
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-1036.92
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
conditions required for disentitlement |
|
|
| labour dispute |
rationale |
|
|
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
by reason of a stoppage |
|
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
purpose of ui system |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of facts |
|
Decision A-1036.92
Full Text of Decision A-1036.92
summary
| 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).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
rationale |
|
|
| labour dispute |
conditions required for disentitlement |
|
|
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
by reason of a stoppage |
|
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
purpose of ui system |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of facts |
|
Decision 15464A
Full Text of Decision 15464A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
Seasonal layoff 18-7-86. Expected recall 18-8-86. Not recalled by reason of strike. 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. No error of law by Board.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
premises |
|
Decision 20136
Full Text of Decision 20136
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
Laid off by Company on 11-7-86 and expected to return to work 11-8-86. The Union went on strike 7-8-86. He was on temporary layoff. He had not severed his employment relationship at the commencement of the strike. The Board made no error of law.
Decision 19771
Full Text of Decision 19771
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
Temporary worker terminated the day before the strike. It is suggested that HURREN and LETOURNEAU can be extended to this case. It would defy logic to suggest that the employer's action was not caused by the impending work stoppage. It was precipitated by the strike notice.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
directly interested |
temporary, probationary |
|
| labour dispute |
directly interested |
recall after stoppage |
|
| labour dispute |
directly interested |
employment terminates |
|
Decision 19043
Full Text of Decision 19043
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
I see nothing wrong with company offering work even though it was aware that employees had scheduled a strike. An offer made in the face of an impending strike with a view to having employees disentitled if they refuse would give rise to that result if offer otherwise legitimate.
Worker recalled to work after seasonal layoff to commence on day of strike. There is no doubt in my mind that had he refused to accept an offer of work from the company he would have been properly disentitled. However, the Board accepted that the recallwas a sham.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
claimants treated differently |
|
|
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Decision A-0044.90
Full Text of Decision A-0044.90
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
Casual worker with Loto-Quebec unemployed at the time of strike on 4-2. Notice sent to her on 12-1 requiring her services for the period from 9-2 to 27-3. No loss of employment due to strike. She had no right to it, according to Umpire. No error in law.
Decision 17664
Full Text of Decision 17664
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0044.90
Decision 18285
Full Text of Decision 18285
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
School bus drivers called back to work during the summer and locked out as from the first day. According to the union, it was just a tactic by the employer. Assessment of evidence and credibility. The Board found that the recalls were legitimate.
Decision A-0209.89
Full Text of Decision A-0209.89
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
Did not resume work due to dispute on date scheduled for recall from seasonal layoff of 4 weeks. GIONEST distinguished. No warrant for importing into ss. 31(1) a requirement that one must be "actually" working. It is sufficient if he has a notice of recall for a specific date.
Decision 16951
Full Text of Decision 16951
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
Difficulty in obtaining and renewing contracts because of the conflict. 5 employees were thus laid off because of lack of work at 4:00 p.m. on 15-3-88. Lock-out at 4:00 p.m. on 17-3. Loss of employment not caused by work stoppage. It is the stoppage that must be due to the conflict, not the lack of work.
Decision 16604
Full Text of Decision 16604
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
Camp closure due to weather from 5-8 to 15-8. Recall date: 25-8. Strike action commenced 19-8 when maintenance workers failed to report for work. MCKELLAR distinguished. No doubt here that claimant would have been recalled.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
casual employees |
|
Decision 16577
Full Text of Decision 16577
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
Seasonal shutdown commencing 11-7 except for some maintenance workers. The strike began on 7-8. Claimant was on the nominal roll for recall on 11-8 at which date regular production had been scheduled.
Decision 16557
Full Text of Decision 16557
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
Worker laid off 26-7 and called to return 22-9 but his union told him not to go. Disentitled as of 22-9. He argued that the company called the employees back in bad faith in order to deprive them of UI and increase pressure.
Decision 16202
Full Text of Decision 16202
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0209.89
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
rationale |
|
|
Decision 15560
Full Text of Decision 15560
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
Claimant laid off in early August because of a lack of work. Recall expected in September but that never happened due to continuing lack of work due to labour dispute at separate premises. GIONEST quoted.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
claimants treated differently |
|
|
Decision 14723
Full Text of Decision 14723
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
Lockout decreed on 17-10. According to the personnel office, the insured's temporary employment was to end on that same day. The supervisor statement has more value and in her opinion, the employment indeed ended on 14-10, that is before the work stoppage.
Decision 14416
Full Text of Decision 14416
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
Maternity leave on 8-11; lay-off notice on 13-12; maternity benefits until 28-4 and regular benefits until 12-5, date when she was to be recalled. Strike occurred on preceding 4-4. Cause different from GIONEST according to Umpire.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
on leave |
|
Decision 14168
Full Text of Decision 14168
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
Ceased work 1-8 and annual vacation shutdown until 18-8. Normal operations to resume 18-8 and claimant to be recalled 25-8. Picket lines 19-8. The fact of being on layoff when strike called does not save claimant from s.31. Case law found in CUB 7645.
Decision 12102
Full Text of Decision 12102
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
Employer laid off some employees on 1-11 in anticipation of strike on 3-11; however, bulk of lay-offs occurred when strike had broken out; must therefore conclude loss of emplyment was because of stoppage. [p. 12]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
conditions required for disentitlement |
|
|
| labour dispute |
rationale |
|
|
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
premises |
|
| labour dispute |
directly interested |
own conditions at issue |
|
| labour dispute |
participation |
definition |
|
| labour dispute |
directly interested |
recall after stoppage |
|
Decision 11573
Full Text of Decision 11573
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
Half of work force laid off on 26-9. Strike started on 1-10. Starting on 4-10, employees' absence from work no longer attributable to lay-off but to dispute.
Decision 11481
Full Text of Decision 11481
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
Left 5 minutes before illegal strike called at noon. I find it difficult to conclude this was not connected with the labour dispute which started 5 minutes later. He admits he left for that purpose. This is a bar to claiming now that it was for other reasons.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
by reason of a stoppage |
|
Decision A-1082.84
Full Text of Decision A-1082.84
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
Whoever resigns and leaves before a stoppage obviously does not lose their employment because of the stoppage. Always possible that the stoppage not take place. He lost his employment, not because of the stoppage, but because he anticipated that there would be a strike.
Not a loss of employment within the meaning of s. 31 unless the resignation was only for show, a way to set off the strike, such as joint resignations by a group of employees. This was a real, true, individual separation from employment. [Marceau, J.]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dismissal upon settlement of labour dispute |
|
|
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
definition |
|
| labour dispute |
rationale |
|
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
strike anticipated |
|
Decision 10685
Full Text of Decision 10685
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
Insured left on the day of the lock-out; board believed him and Umpire of opinion he should not intervene. Up to insured to show that s. 44 not applicable. 2 ways of doing this: leaving voluntarily or relying on 44(2).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
assess credibility |
duty |
Decision 10178
Full Text of Decision 10178
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
I found claimant left on 27-8 because of the imminence of the strike 2-9. He thought he would escape 31(1). There is an abundance of jurisprudence which holds that leaving prior to strike is a loss under s. 31.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
participation |
picket lines |
|
Decision 09529
Full Text of Decision 09529
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
The jurisprudence is to the effect that, where one quits due to an impending strike, he does not escape ss.44(1). Otherwise, all employees would be entitled to quit shortly before the commencement of a strike and claim UI, thus defeating the purpose of the Act.
Decision 09056
Full Text of Decision 09056
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
Claimant quit 1 day before the strike began. No error in law by Board. There is sufficient evidence to believe that she quit because of the impending strike. She admits having left earlier than anticipated because of the meeting held to decide on a strike.
Decision 08987
Full Text of Decision 08987
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
Laid off 1 day prior to the strike. The question to be decided is whether he was laid off in anticipation of the strike or for other reasons. This is a question of fact. The Board found the layoff was in anticipation of the stoppage, not due to work shortage. No error.
Decision A-1036.82
Full Text of Decision A-1036.82
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
Laid off in December. Disentitled from date he would have been recalled in April. Satisfied that he had no employment from December until resumption in May. He had an interruption of earnings which entitled him to UI. Issue on all fours with CLOUTIER. Upheld by FC.
Decision A-0833.82
Full Text of Decision A-0833.82
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
Locked out in off-season. Claimant may have lost an opportunity for re-employment. Even this is very doubtful: not recalled until 2 1/2 months after settlement. I disagree with CUB 4915. No loss of employment when one is already unemployed. Upheld by FC.
Decision A-0801.82
Full Text of Decision A-0801.82
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
Supply teachers laid off at end of school year; would have been recalled on 2-9 if there had not been a strike. Not laid off because of work stoppage. Possibility or even moral certainty of working is not sufficient, according to Umpire.
Decision A-0549.81
Full Text of Decision A-0549.81
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
Case identical to GIONEST. A person who is not employed who loses the chance to be employed does not lose his employment within the meaning of 44(1).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
labour dispute |
definition |
|
Decision A-0787.81
Full Text of Decision A-0787.81
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
Seasonal worker. Cannot lose what does not have. An unemployed person who loses the chance of being employed may lose employment, but not "his" employment; it was never his. He perhaps had the right to be recalled, but that is not employment.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
labour dispute |
definition |
|
