Decision A0163.12
Full Text of Decision A0163.12
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
attributable to dispute |
|
Summary:
The claimant was an employee of Telus Communications Inc. and a member of the Telecommunications Workers Union (TWU). On July 21, 2005, the TWU established picket lines outside Telus worksites after Telus locked out the bargaining unit. The claimant applied for benefits indicating that he was not working due to the lockout. The Commission determined that the claimant was not entitled because he had lost his employment due to a labour dispute. The Umpire confirmed the Commission’s decision, and found that the BOR erred by not considering all the factors for determining whether the claimant fell under one of the exceptions to the general rule that workers who lose their employment due to a work stoppage arising from a labour dispute are not entitled to EI benefits in accordance with subsection 36(1) of the EI Act. The claimant filed an application for judicial review. The FCA found that the Umpire did not commit any reviewable error.
Decision A-0182.03
Full Text of Decision A-0182.03
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
attributable to dispute |
|
Summary:
Identical case to FAC A-0184.03. See summary indexed under it.
Decision A-0094.03
Full Text of Decision A-0094.03
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
attributable to dispute |
|
Summary:
Identical case to FAC A-0184.03. See summary indexed under it.
Decision A-0186.03
Full Text of Decision A-0186.03
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
attributable to dispute |
|
Summary:
Identical case to FAC A-0184.03. See summary indexed under it.
Decision A-0184.03
Full Text of Decision A-0184.03
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
attributable to dispute |
|
Summary:
The BOR had concluded that the claimants had lost their employment because of a shortage of work. The Court is of the opinion that the Board erred in giving the benefit of the doubt to the claimants' witness while disregarding the evidence on record. The Court concluded that the Umpire was right to intervene. See summary of the Umpire's decision in Sylvain Dontigny, indexed under CUB 56057.
Decision A-0185.03
Full Text of Decision A-0185.03
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
attributable to dispute |
|
Summary:
Identical case to FAC A-0184.03. See summary indexed under it.
Decision A-0183.03
Full Text of Decision A-0183.03
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
attributable to dispute |
|
Summary:
Identical case to FAC A-0184.03. See summary indexed under it.
Decision 56057
Full Text of Decision 56057
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
attributable to dispute |
|
Summary:
The claimant lost his employment for lack of work because of the exercise of pressure tactics at the plant. The Umpire determined that the Board of Referees erred in concluding that the claimant had lost his employment because of a shortage of work. The evidence shows that there was a labour dispute at the site where the claimant worked and that was the reason for the loss of his employment. See the decision of the Federal Court for this case and others in Jeffrey Lepage, summary indexed under FCA A-0184.03
Decision A-0512.97
Full Text of Decision A-0512.97
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
attributable to dispute |
|
Summary:
Case identical to A-0511.97. See summary indexed under this reference number.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
conditions required for exemption |
|
|
| labour dispute |
directly interested |
many unions |
|
Decision A-0511.97
Full Text of Decision A-0511.97
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
attributable to dispute |
|
Summary:
As a member of the office employees union, the claimant was found to be directly interested in the strike by employees of the production employees union against the same employer. The claimant alleged that the only employees "directly interested" in the labour dispute were those whose conditions of employment were automatically determined or modified by the outcome of the dispute. Claimant’s allegations summarily rejected by the FCA. For more details, consult summaries indexed under CUB 37885.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
conditions required for exemption |
|
|
| labour dispute |
directly interested |
many unions |
|
Decision A-0690.96
Full Text of Decision A-0690.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
attributable to dispute |
|
Summary:
Claimant was not on a lay off when he left his job on 27-01-94. Like all unionzed and casual longshoreman claimant's work assignments are dispatched daily dependant on work. The pattern of employment was not sporadic. While he did not have an assignment the next day, it was reasonable to assume that the claimant had employment to which he would have been recalled as usual but for the strike. Many cases distinguished. ** Claimant had much more than an expectation of being recalled. He had a near certainty pattern that he would have an assignment the next day. The claimant had not terminated his employment relationship nor had he broken his ties with his employer. At all relevant times the claimatn remained in the workforce comprising the union, non union, casual and scheduled longshoreman. Many cases distinguished.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
casual employees |
|
Decision 37885
Full Text of Decision 37885
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
attributable to dispute |
|
Summary:
Stoppage of work attributable to a labour dispute. Three unions involved, but all under the CSN. The collective agreements all expired at the same time. Umpire found that, despite the fact that security and clerical staff were legally members of another unit of the same union, they could not circumvent section 31. The claims were the same in several regards; the benefits granted were partially the same and everyone was waiting for the main dispute to be resolved to sign their own collective agreement.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
conditions required for exemption |
|
|
| labour dispute |
directly interested |
many unions |
|
Decision A-0611.96
Full Text of Decision A-0611.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
attributable to dispute |
|
Summary:
The employer ordered the closure of the jobsite where the claimant worked because of a dispute with the union. This action by the employer was part of a labour dispute which, for several months, had pitted employers and employees in the construction industry against one another on the subject of the terms and conditions of their future agreement. FCA maintained that the existence of a causal connection between the labour dispute and the stoppage of work is a question of law. Therefore, it applied the decision in J.D. Laval et al (A-0825.95), which found in similar circumstances that there was a clear causal connection between the labour dispute and the stoppage of work. Court held that both the BOR and the Umpire erred in law when they found that such a connection did not exist.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of facts |
|
Decision A-0825.95
Full Text of Decision A-0825.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
attributable to dispute |
|
Summary:
Umpire reproached BOR for having mistakenly dissociated the stoppage of work for construction employees in Quebec from the dispute between employers and employees that had been going on for several months regarding the terms of their future agreement. He did not accept the fact that the members of the BOR could come to such a conclusion based on the argument that the Minister’s intervention in the form of Bill 142 exacerbated the situation. Umpire saw the Minister’s intervention as one incident in the conflict, a way to resolve the impasse, a step in finding a solution to the employer-employee dispute. He did not agree that, because the Bill triggered the stoppage of work, it could be viewed as independent of the labour dispute. FCA upheld the Umpire’s decision and found that Umpire did not in any way deviate from the concept of dispute referred to in the Act.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
directly interested |
construction trade decree |
|
Decision 23200
Full Text of Decision 23200
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
attributable to dispute |
|
Summary:
Customers who anticipated a strike moved their work or delayed placing work with the employer. They were apprehensive about an anticipated strike. They took action to try to ensure that they were not caught in the middle. The layoff which the claimant suffered was clearly due to a work stoppage.
Decision 21225
Full Text of Decision 21225
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
attributable to dispute |
|
Summary:
The roofs not having been closed-in, water pooled on the floor. Pressure tactics caused the dangerous conditions existing at the place of work and thus caused the stoppage. The pooled water cannot alone explain the three-week stoppage.
Decision 17259
Full Text of Decision 17259
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
attributable to dispute |
|
Summary:
Claimants walked off 10-1. Summoned to report for work on 18-1. They failed to but were willing to do so 19-1; they were suspended until 8-2. Neither the dispute nor the stoppage terminated 19-1. Their loss of employment continued by reason of a stoppage due to a dispute.
Decision 16556
Full Text of Decision 16556
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
attributable to dispute |
|
Summary:
Stoppage of work commenced 19-8. In the present case, it is irrelevant whether a continuing fire hazard would have prevented reopening in any event since the primary cause was repairs not done due to picketing. Proof of fire hazard inconclusive in any event.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
on leave |
|
Decision A-1063.87
Full Text of Decision A-1063.87
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
attributable to dispute |
|
Summary:
It is clear that the work stoppage mentioned in para. 31(1)(a) is the same as that mentioned in the introductory words, i.e. a work stoppage attributable to a labour dispute, but not the same thing as the loss of employment caused to a claimant.
Decision 14267
Full Text of Decision 14267
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
attributable to dispute |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-1063.87
Decision 12992A
Full Text of Decision 12992A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
attributable to dispute |
|
Summary:
Various companies negotiating with various unions. Claimant's group locked out due to dispute at distinct premises, employer insisting on industry wide ratification clause. The loss of work was clearly due to a dispute; it was not a layoff.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
illegal |
|
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
settlement of dispute |
|
Decision A-0257.84
Full Text of Decision A-0257.84
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
attributable to dispute |
|
Summary:
The issue under 44(1)(a) is the time during which the employee contnued to be unemployed as a rsult of the work stoppage caused by the dispute. Another cause may arise and the point when the change occurs must be determined.
When the continuation of the work stoppage for the employee results solely from decisions of the employer, which are in no way imposed by the initial stoppage, although brought about by the strike or lock-out, the disentitlement terminates.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
partial resumption |
|
Decision A-0354.79
Full Text of Decision A-0354.79
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
attributable to dispute |
|
Summary:
According to the Umpire, the dispute was the occasion and not the cause of the stoppage: the employer had taken advantage of bargaining to try to reduce break times. We are of the opinion that the judged erred in law: the stoppage was attributable to the dispute.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of facts |
|
