| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
directly interested |
in the future |
|
Summary:
The BOR erred in only taking into consideration the position the claimant was working in at the time of the work stoppage, i.e. in a non-bargaining unit. It could not ignore the facts that he was a due-paying member of the bargaining unit, that he was therefore participating in as well as financing the labour dispute through his dues and, most importantly, the fact that he was directly interested in the outcome and did in fact ripe some benefits, including some benefits on retirement.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
labour dispute |
financing |
|
Summary:
The BOR erred in only taking into consideration the position the claimant was working in at the time of the work stoppage, i.e. in a non-bargaining unit. It could not ignore the facts that he was a due-paying member of the bargaining unit, that he was therefore participating in as well as financing the labour dispute through his dues and, most importantly, the fact that he was directly interested in the outcome and did in fact ripe some benefits, including some benefits on retirement.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
participation |
definition |
|
Summary:
The BOR erred in only taking into consideration the position the claimant was working in at the time of the work stoppage, i.e. in a non-bargaining unit. It could not ignore the facts that he was a due-paying member of the bargaining unit, that he was therefore participating in as well as financing the labour dispute through his dues and, most importantly, the fact that he was directly interested in the outcome and did in fact ripe some benefits, including some benefits on retirement.
