| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
conditions required for disentitlement |
|
|
Summary:
There are 4 factual circumstances that the Commission must prove and assume the burden of proof: (1) there must have been a loss of employment; (2) loss of employment resulting from a stoppage of work; (3) stoppage of work attributable to a labour dispute; (4) labour dispute at the premises where the claimant was employed.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| federal court |
renunciation of recourse |
|
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-1063.92
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
labour dispute |
definition |
|
Summary:
Dispute does not necessarily mean a strike or lockout; the 2 are rather the end result of a dispute. When the parties are negotiating a labour agreement and one party insists while the other resists, there is a dispute in the sense that there is obviously no agreement.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
existence |
|
Summary:
According to claimant, more than 100,000 workers are involved in Quebec construction industry and only 800 with this employer, i.e. less than 1%. Thus the stoppage of work does not approach the 85% mentioned in the Act. Ss. 31(1) refers to the "premises" at which the claimant was employed.
Given that the construction decree does not allow a strike or lockout, if one party uses pressure tactics to obtain what it wants, the result may be a stoppage of work attributable to a labour dispute. This clearly happened in the case at bar.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
rule of 85% |
|
Summary:
According to claimant, more than 100,000 workers are involved in the Quebec construction industry and only 800 with this employer, i.e. less than 1%. Thus the stoppage of work does not approach the 85% mentioned in the Act. Ss. 31(1) refers to the "premises" at which the claimant was employed.
