Summary of Issue

Decision 21571 Full Text of Decision 21571

Regular employee, member of union, on vacation the day of the lockout, on 1-6-88; was to come back to work on 6-6. Evidence clearly shows he lost his employment because of a work stoppage. Had it not been for the lockout, he would have been called back to work.

Decision 20347 Full Text of Decision 20347

Left in 3-90 to attend course with recall date 24-5-90. Workers on strike 11-5-90. He returned to work after the strike. Many favourable decisions including GIONEST. However, based on recent MORRISON, where there is a specific recall date, the loss is by reason of the stoppage.

Decision 20326 Full Text of Decision 20326

On sick leave from 3-90 until 28-5-90. A strike arose 14-5-90. It has consistently been held that if one is prevented from returning to work due to a stoppage of work, this is tantamount to having lost his employment due to the stoppage. Disentitled as of 28-5-90.

Decision 18444 Full Text of Decision 18444

On sick leave from 6-4 to 15-8; there was a lock-out in the meantime, that is on 10-6. The loss of employment on 15-8 was therefore due to the work stoppage.

Decision 18293 Full Text of Decision 18293

Stopped working in 3-88 because of illness; strike on 5-4 which was still going on on 7-8, when the sick leave finished. Allowed by the Board on the basis of GIONEST. Decision reversed; not consistent with precedent; employment relationship not broken during the sickness.

Decision 18188 Full Text of Decision 18188

Occupational accident on 10-3; strike on 6-4; was to resume work on 25-5. A claimant who cannot go back to his job after an accident because of a work stoppage due to an industrial dispute is not entitled to benefits. GIONEST does not apply here.

Decision 17679 Full Text of Decision 17679

The insured person was sick on the first day of the lock-out. An error in law by the Board. Sick before and after, but he did not miss work because of sickness. He worked until 30-10, day of the lock-out, picketed for one hour and received strike pay until 7-1.

Decision 14416A Full Text of Decision 14416A

Maternity leave: 8-11-85 to 12-5-86; she had previously received notice on 4-10-85 announcing she would be laid off on 29-11-85. She would have been recalled on 1-4-86; the strike occurred on 7-4-86. Declared disentitled as of 12-5-86. GIONEST not applicable.

Decision 16589 Full Text of Decision 16589

GIONEST is different from the situation as here where a plan shuts down for annual vacation and work is to resume when it is over, but in the intervening period there is a strike preventing the re-opening. While not actually working, they are employed.

Decision 16556 Full Text of Decision 16556

Workers laid off 2-8 for 2 weeks (until 16-8) when mill closed for annual vacation. 5 maintenance workers called on 18-8 but would not cross a picket line. Claimant was not involved in repair work but was not called due to strike. Disentitled as of 19-8.

Decision 14558 Full Text of Decision 14558

Stops working because of illness on 27-10-84, receives wage loss insurance benefits and must return to work on 6-1-85; strike begins on 21-12-84; files a claim in 1-85. Different from GIONEST.

Decision 14416 Full Text of Decision 14416

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.

Decision 13647A Full Text of Decision 13647A

Injured on 4-7 and collects weekly indemnity payments while recovering from injury. Return to work scheduled for 23-9. Employees locked out 27-7. Correctly disentitled from 23-9.

Decision 14033 Full Text of Decision 14033

Last day worked 5-8. Surgery performed 7-8. Cleared to return to work 15-8, 3 days after a strike had commenced. Only reason for claimant not to be at work on 15-8 was a labour dispute.

Decision 11008 Full Text of Decision 11008

Maternity leave from 3-6 to 24-9; work stoppage on 9-6. Declared disentitled in September. Work stoppage that occurs in middle of maternity leave and prevents person from resuming work cannot be used as springboard for paying benefit.

Decision 09379 Full Text of Decision 09379

Claimant was away on vacation during the strike. He left on vacation with the clear intention of returning to work and if no strike had ensued he would have done just that. Disentitled upon return when making a claim. Clearly not entitled under ss.44(1).

Decision 09139 Full Text of Decision 09139

Electrical apprentice referred to an apprenticeship course from 18-6 to 12-8 and was to resume work 13-8. Employees locked out from 9-8 to 6-9. As he was unemployed while attending the course, it would be contrary to WATAJA to deny him benefit from 13-8.

Decision A-0661.83 Full Text of Decision A-0661.83

Employee of INCO who took leave on 27-2-78 to go and work with union until 9-3-79, at which time he did not resume work with INCO due to the strike effective 15-9-78. His loss of employment was on 9-3-79 and was due to a layoff by reason of a shortage of work.