Summary of Issue: Conditions Required For Exemption

Decision 74027 Full Text of Decision 74027

The claimant applied for benefits and indicating that he was a member of the Union and that his last employment ended on June 20, 2008 because of a strike. A new collective agreement was ratified by the Union and the employer on August 14 and August 18, 2008 respectively 65 of the 130 employees, including the claimant were recalled on August 18, 2008. The balance of the other employees was recalled on October 6, 2008. The Commission concluded that the work stoppage did not end until October 6, 2008. Therefore, the claimant was not entitled to employment insurance benefits for the period of the strike from June 23, 2008 to October 3, 2008. Regulation 53 stipulates that work stoppage is terminated when the workforce ... attains at least 85% of its normal level...The evidence indicates that this level of 85% was not attained until October 6, 2008. Only 50% of the 130 employees, including the claimant, were recalled on August 18, 2008 and the remainder on October 6, 2008, which was the end of the work stoppage.

Decision A0032.09 Full Text of Decision A0032.09

The FCA determined that the Umpire did not err in finding that the dispute leading to the work stoppage was more in the nature of a political process than the result of a labour dispute as defined by s. 2(1) and s. 36 of the EIA. The FCA did not directly confirm that the work stoppage was due to a political protest. Rather, it found that both the decision of the BOR and the decision of the Umpire were reasonable. Further, although it was not at issue and none of the parties argued the onus of proof, the FCA appears to have reversed the burden of proof by stating that the onus lies with the Commission to demonstrate that Ms. Benedetti is disentitled to her benefits. Application for judicial review dismissed.

Decision A-0511.97 Full Text of Decision A-0511.97

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.

Decision A-0512.97 Full Text of Decision A-0512.97

Case identical to A-0511.97. See summary indexed under this reference number.

Decision 40320 Full Text of Decision 40320

BOR deemed that the clmt, who is a member of an international union, had no interest in the labour dispute because he belonged to the industrial sector and only the residential sector was subject to the decree. Umpire found that BOR erred in failing to apply the conditions of the Act. Clmt was directly interested in the dispute since he belonged to the union and financed it through his own contributions.

Decision 37885 Full Text of Decision 37885

The jurisprudence has continually established that to circumvent the provisions of section 31, the claimant must, under subsection 31(2), meet all the following conditions: no participation in dispute; no funding; no direct interest; and no membership in a group or category of workers who fund or are directly involved in the dispute.

Decision 25585 Full Text of Decision 25585

The conditions in ss. 31(2) must be read conjunctively. The word "or" is used simply to indicate that if claimant is doing any one of these things then he may be disentitled. If there is any ambiguity, the French text is clear that claimant must prove the enumerated three things.