| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dismissal upon settlement of labour dispute |
|
|
Summary:
This loss of employment allegedly took place in November when the employer refused to hire him back. A person cannot lose what he does not have... He already lost his employment at the time of the lock-out in June. Ss. 41(2) changes nothing.
The definitive loss that led to the interruption of earnings occurred at the end of the work stoppage, and that is when s. 41 should apply.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
definition |
|
Summary:
Loss of employment under s. 44 and s. 41 not synonymous: limited to forced departure in 41 since voluntary departure also used, whereas 44 covers both strikes and lock-outs. Definitive loss in 41; temporary loss in 44 since the relationship has not ended.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
rule of 13 weeks |
|
Summary:
Work stoppage due to a labour dispute 19-6. Not taken back in November because of misconduct. Claim filed in November. Immediate action must be taken to eliminate Reg. 59(1) from the issue. [reasoning difficult to understand]
