Summary of Issue

Decision 71732 Full Text of Decision 71732

Section 36 of the Act states that a person who experiences a work stoppage as result of a labour dispute is not entitled to receive benefits unless he or she meets certain criteria. Section 36(4) of the Act stipulate that, this section does not apply if a claimant proves that the claimant is not participating in, financing or directly interested in the labour dispute that caused the stoppage of work. To be exempt from the application of the Act, claimants must prove that they are not participating in, financing or «indirectly interested» in the labour dispute. The expression «indirectly interested» means that claimants must show that, if they return to work following the dispute, they cannot access any earnings or benefits obtained as a result of the dispute. The fourth criterion is speculative, but clearly sets out that the claimant, who may benefit from a new collective agreement in the future, cannot be exempt from the application of section 36 of the Act. The appeal is dismissed.

Decision 35831 Full Text of Decision 35831

Although only a 6 week contract, claimant not entitled to benefits from the date on which the strike commenced because she did have a direct interest in the strike until the date of the expiration of her contract.

Decision 26330 Full Text of Decision 26330

Teacher on strike from 8-5-91, contract expiring end of 6-91. No picket line during summer. Strike terminated 2-9-91. A few teachers resigned, so claimant got a new contract from 12-9-91. HURREN and CUB 18076 quoted. Indirect interest following expiration of contract.

Decision 22996 Full Text of Decision 22996

Jurisprudence makes clear that merely receiving an increase in wages after a strike does not mean that a non-union worker is directly interested in a labour dispute when the increase is completely within the discretion of the employer and there is no continuing right of the employee to employment.

Decision A-0594.91 Full Text of Decision A-0594.91

Temporary workers discharged without right of recall on the eve of a legal strike by permanent workers. The Umpire did not err in concluding that the claimants were exempted from disentitlement to benefit by ss. 31(2).

Decision 21353 Full Text of Decision 21353

Dismissed during stoppage: disobeyed injunction and assaulted guard. Employer not interested in re-hiring but possibility of negotiations during back-to-work protocol. CUB-14636 applies; authentic and non-definitive breach; remains party to the conflict.

Decision 19771 Full Text of Decision 19771

Refer to: A-0594.91

Decision 15562 Full Text of Decision 15562

Claimant dismissed due to misconduct during lockout. HURREN examined. One single most important fact is claimant's desire to be reinstated. Grievance filed against dismissal. It cannot be said that claimant does not retain any direct interest under 31(2).

Decision A-0741.87 Full Text of Decision A-0741.87

As for the possibility a substitute teacher might have to teach again after the stoppage, such interest would be anything but direct, said the Umpire. Upheld by FC.

Decision 14021 Full Text of Decision 14021

Refer to: A-0741.87

Decision 14679 Full Text of Decision 14679

Claimant dismissed for misconduct. As proposed settlement of dispute involved claimant's reinstatement and as employer did not rule out his reinstatement it must be said that he was directly interested.

Decision 14636 Full Text of Decision 14636

In order to determine whether 31(2) applies, the CEIC submitted that the Board would have to find that claimant's severance from employment was full, final and absolute. Even if that is but another way of describing how 31(2) can apply, I prefer the exposition in HURREN. [p._8] Claimant locked out 1-1 and then terminated 6-2 due to actions on picket line. Grievance filed and rejected. Union intends to negotiate dismissal prior to resuming activities. HURREN distinguished. Continues to be directly interested.

Decision 13738 Full Text of Decision 13738

Employee whose contract was expected to terminate during the strike. The retroactive increase does not help us. In either case, this was merely a windfall in consideration of past services, which is not even considered to be earnings under reg. 57(3)(e). [p. 7]

Decision A-0942.85 Full Text of Decision A-0942.85

A disentitlement which has come into being under 31(1) continues until (a) or (b) applies. This does not exclude the possibility of it becoming inapplicable by reason of claimant subsequently proving 31(2). This is not contrary to the policy of the Act. Truly retired during strike. It was argued that he might have an eventual interest in the settlement should he decide to return. Assuming that such interest was different from that of the public at large, it would not be "direct" within 31(2).

Decision 11403 Full Text of Decision 11403

Refer to: A-0942.85