Summary of Issue: Unable To Resume

Decision 29183 Full Text of Decision 29183

He who loses his employment and he who cannot return to his former employment are on equal footing: they are disentitled from receiving benefits until the termination of the stoppage of work. The Board erred in fact and in law.

Decision 26888 Full Text of Decision 26888

What must be decided here is whether there was definite employment to be resumed at a set date, or just a promise or hope. Formal lack of the recall notice stipulated in the agreement does not justify a finding that this would not have happened had there been no strike. The words "unable to resume his previous employment" have the effect of broadening disentitlement in the former section 31. One must thus be careful in applying the jurisprudence rendered before the amendment. GIONEST to be distinguished because of this amendment.

Decision 25583 Full Text of Decision 25583

Laid off in 2-92; scheduled to go back on 25-5-92. The strike started on 14-5-92. The Commission submits that he was unable to resume employment because of a work stoppage. Claimant was a casual worker but he had a fixed recall date. As in MORRISON, he had employment to lose.

Decision 25364 Full Text of Decision 25364

Flight attendant laid off with unknown date of recall. He says his separation was final. The employer says he would have been recalled. GIONEST applies. The labour dispute existed prior to the recall, so it cannot be said that he had any employment to return to. He acted as if separation was final.