Decision 76451
Full Text of Decision 76451
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
by reason of a stoppage |
|
Summary:
The Commission issued a disentitlement to benefits pursuant to subsection 36(1) of the Act, the claimant having lost her employment as a result of a work stoppage attributable to a labour dispute at her place of employment. The claimant is not entitled to receive benefits until the earlier of a. the end of the work stoppage, and b. the day on which the claimant becomes regularly engaged elsewhere in insurable employment. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed by the Umpire.
Decision A0542.07
Full Text of Decision A0542.07
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
by reason of a stoppage |
|
Summary:
The issue before the BOR was whether the claimants lost their employment with Telus because of a work stoppage attributable to a labour dispute within the meaning of 36(1) of the EIA. The Umpire confirmed the decisions of the BOR in which the claimants were awarded employment insurance benefits. The FCA concluded that the Umpire misconstrued the decision of the BOR. It was clear that the claimants lost their employment due to a work stoppage attributable to a labour dispute.
Decision 56343
Full Text of Decision 56343
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
by reason of a stoppage |
|
Summary:
Claimant stopped working due to a labour dispute. Facts established that he was a member of the Union representing his bargaining unit. Claimant failed to demonstrate that he fell within the exclusions provided in the Act i.e. that he was not participating in the labour dispute, he was not financing the work stoppage and that he was not directly interested in the result of the labour dispute leading to the work stoppage.
Decision A-1036.92
Full Text of Decision A-1036.92
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
by reason of a stoppage |
|
Summary:
The Umpire erred when he asked whether claimants lost their job by reason of a labour dispute; they, of course, did. He should have asked whether they lost it by reason of a "stoppage of work" attributable to a labour dispute; they did not. They lost it in anticipation, not because, of a stoppage.
The second issue was said to be a factual one: the Umpire found "as a fact" that the loss of employment resulted from the stoppage of work. This is not a factual matter at all; it is a conclusion of law based on certain facts found by the Umpire. There is really no dispute with regard to the facts.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
rationale |
|
|
| labour dispute |
conditions required for disentitlement |
|
|
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
purpose of ui system |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of facts |
|
Decision 21236
Full Text of Decision 21236
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
by reason of a stoppage |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-1036.92
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
conditions required for disentitlement |
|
|
| labour dispute |
rationale |
|
|
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
purpose of ui system |
|
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of facts |
|
Decision 21915
Full Text of Decision 21915
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
by reason of a stoppage |
|
Summary:
The lack of work was the direct result of pressure being exercised on the worksite. Had it not been for this work stoppage, there would have been no lack of work. The reason for the layoff and the work stoppage are linked so closely that the one is the result of the other.
Decision 20955
Full Text of Decision 20955
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
by reason of a stoppage |
|
Summary:
If it is accepted that the employer indeed cancelled all shifts (of Local 1518), it nevertheless did so as a consequence of the strike by Local 2000. The fact that the employer took the initiative does not change this reality. No question that the loss was due to the dispute.
Decision 16425A
Full Text of Decision 16425A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
by reason of a stoppage |
|
Summary:
Claimant was 1 of 7 electricians who went on strike. The fact that the employer for reasons best known only to himself chose not to put him to work on another project where there was no strike along with his fellow employees does not alter the cause forhis loss of employment.
Decision 19042
Full Text of Decision 19042
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
by reason of a stoppage |
|
Summary:
The Board found the employment was not suitable. I accept the submission that suitability or non-suitability is not relevant as to why employment was lost. It should have directed itself to a consideration of why that employment was lost and not to the suitability of it.
Decision 17679
Full Text of Decision 17679
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
by reason of a stoppage |
|
Summary:
The insured person was sick on the first day of the lock-out. An error in law by the Board. Sick before and after, but he did not miss work because of sickness. He worked until 30-10, day of the lock-out, picketed for one hour and received strike pay until 7-1.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
on leave |
|
Decision 16952
Full Text of Decision 16952
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
by reason of a stoppage |
|
Summary:
Notice sent to the insured person by the employer on 16-3, informing him that he would be laid off 24 hours later, that is at 5:00 p.m. on 17-3. Lock-out at 3:55 p.m. on 17-3. The Board decided that the layoff was due to the lack of work. A question of facts, in which I am unable to intervene.
Decision 16903
Full Text of Decision 16903
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
by reason of a stoppage |
|
Summary:
The Board did not err in finding that the workers' lay-offs attributable "to a reduction of business volume caused by Company's inability to provide firm fixed delivery dates to regular customers due to the potential for labour disruption" were attributable to a stoppage of work.
Decision 16653
Full Text of Decision 16653
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
by reason of a stoppage |
|
Summary:
Claimant says the Board applied the wrong test. It found the loss of employment was as a result of a labour dispute rather than as a result of a stoppage of work due to the dispute. It is clear the loss occurred because of the cessation of the operations due to the dispute.
Decision 15334
Full Text of Decision 15334
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
by reason of a stoppage |
|
Summary:
Honoured picket line by other workers as of 12-5. Was due for layoff 15-5 for other reasons and he was laid off. Claim filed after layoff. Not a loss of employment due to strike. In the alternative, case allowed under 44(2): not involved in strike at time of filing claim.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
participation |
duration |
|
Decision 15259
Full Text of Decision 15259
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
by reason of a stoppage |
|
Summary:
I cannot conclude that a shortage of work was the real cause of his lay-off when it is evident that he would have worked the following 12-5 but for the strike.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
participation |
picket lines |
|
Decision 14507
Full Text of Decision 14507
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
by reason of a stoppage |
|
Summary:
Member of bargaining unit who crossed the picket line and continued to work for 6 weeks until laid off. Loss due to oversupply and employer coincidentally trying to remedy a product quality problem. Lack of work unconnected to the strike. [p. 11]
Decision 14253
Full Text of Decision 14253
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
by reason of a stoppage |
|
Summary:
Stopped work due to the strike on 31-5. Returned to work as of 17-7 during the strike at the same premises for the same employer and laid off 8-11 due to shortage of work. Not employed "elsewhere" under 44(1)(b).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
regularly engaged |
elsewhere |
|
Decision 14236
Full Text of Decision 14236
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
by reason of a stoppage |
|
Summary:
Dispute over fish quality control. 32 walked out in the afternoon. Upon their return to work the next day, all employees locked out including 68 workers and claimant who had not walked out.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
conditions required for disentitlement |
|
|
| labour dispute |
directly interested |
own conditions at issue |
|
Decision 12900
Full Text of Decision 12900
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
by reason of a stoppage |
|
Summary:
It is contended that their loss of employment was not due to the strike but to a management decision to minimize the residual effects of the strike. The causative effect of the strike on the loss cannot be ignored. The decision to lay-off was directly attributable to the strike.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
directly interested |
non-bargaining group |
|
Decision A-0942.85
Full Text of Decision A-0942.85
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
by reason of a stoppage |
|
Summary:
There is no requirement that the loss of employment should be simultaneous with the dispute or the stoppage and ss. 31(2) clearly contemplates that it may be later in time as, for example, where non union employees are laid off some time after the strike has begun.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
rationale |
|
|
| labour dispute |
participation |
duration |
|
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
| federal court |
reasons for judgment not stated |
interpretation |
|
| labour dispute |
directly interested |
employment terminates |
|
Decision 11403
Full Text of Decision 11403
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
by reason of a stoppage |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0942.85
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
rationale |
|
|
| labour dispute |
participation |
duration |
|
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
| federal court |
reasons for judgment not stated |
interpretation |
|
| labour dispute |
directly interested |
employment terminates |
|
Decision 12103
Full Text of Decision 12103
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
by reason of a stoppage |
|
Summary:
Bulk of lay-offs occurred as strike went on; delivery service employees laid off because of shortage of work; must therefore be concluded that there was loss of employment because of stoppage.
Decision 11481
Full Text of Decision 11481
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
by reason of a stoppage |
|
Summary:
Illegal strike 23-8 followed by injunction. Employees back to work for one day 4-9 immediately followed by legal strike. Claimant enrolled in course during illegal strike. Loss of employment on 5-9 not due to strike. Technical solution not applicable toothers.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Decision A-0373.82
Full Text of Decision A-0373.82
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
by reason of a stoppage |
|
Summary:
It was argued that claimant, a union member of Hamilton local, would have lost his travel card if he crossed the picket line honoured by the London local. The Board found that he lost his employment due to the stoppage. Undisputable that there is evidence to support this. [p.7]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
participation |
picket lines |
|
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
Decision 65854
Full Text of Decision 65854
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
casual employees |
|
Summary:
Claimant was a casual on-call employee member of the union. He argued that his loss of employment was due to the fact that he was not recalled to work rather than prevented from working due to the strike. Claimant fell within the provisions of Regulation 36(1) as he was scheduled to work and would have worked had it not been for the strike.
Decision A-0150.00
Full Text of Decision A-0150.00
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
casual employees |
|
Summary:
Claimant started working 26-08-98 as a casual employee and on 28-08, the employer declared a lockout. Claimant declared disentitled, but BOR allowed the claimant's appeal, finding that the claimant had been hired in anticipation of the labour dispute. The Commission subsequently appealed to the Umpire and to the FCA, but was unsuccessful. No legal analysis by the Court and no principle of law established.
Decision 47370
Full Text of Decision 47370
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
casual employees |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0150.00
Decision A-0690.96
Full Text of Decision A-0690.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
casual employees |
|
Summary:
Claimant was not on a lay off when he left his job on 27-01-94. Like all unionzed and casual longshoreman claimant's work assignments are dispatched daily dependant on work. The pattern of employment was not sporadic. While he did not have an assignment the next day, it was reasonable to assume that the claimant had employment to which he would have been recalled as usual but for the strike. Many cases distinguished. ** Claimant had much more than an expectation of being recalled. He had a near certainty pattern that he would have an assignment the next day. The claimant had not terminated his employment relationship nor had he broken his ties with his employer. At all relevant times the claimatn remained in the workforce comprising the union, non union, casual and scheduled longshoreman. Many cases distinguished.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
attributable to dispute |
|
Decision 32940
Full Text of Decision 32940
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
casual employees |
|
Summary:
Long term occasional teacher lost employment due to labour dispute on 8-6-93 before end of contract (25-6-93). Cannot find relief under 31(1). References made to FCA in Imbeault(A-181-83), Hurren(A-942-85), White(A-1036-92) and Hinds(A-139-88). Claimantmay have been concerned with strike's outcome.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Decision 21570
Full Text of Decision 21570
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
casual employees |
|
Summary:
Lockout at midnight on 1-6-88; the insured was to work on 1-6 but was not called back because of the lockout; not member of the union. Evidence clearly shows he lost his work because of a work stoppage. Had it not been for the lockout, he would have been called to work.
Decision A-0692.90
Full Text of Decision A-0692.90
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
casual employees |
|
Summary:
Worked irregularly, free to decline any call back offer. He had no recall rights on last day worked 14-10 and did not know when he would be recalled. A lockout occurred 15-10. Was not employed at that time. He only had the hope of future employment.
Decision 18404
Full Text of Decision 18404
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
casual employees |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0692.90
Decision 18825
Full Text of Decision 18825
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
casual employees |
|
Summary:
Seasonal worker on call. He says he had a call back to work on a "will call" basis in 4-88 and that he had worked 3 weeks on that basis until the strike occurred on 9-5. CUB 13650, an identical factual situation, was resolved in favour of claimant. I endorse that reasoning.
Decision 16604
Full Text of Decision 16604
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
casual employees |
|
Summary:
To maintain casual workers' entitlement on the chance that the day a dispute commences was a day of layoff rather than a day of work is unreasonable. They have employment to lose even if not working on the day the dispute commences. CUB 7465 and GIONESTdistinguished.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Decision 16573
Full Text of Decision 16573
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
casual employees |
|
Summary:
According to company, all casuals would have been working the week of 20 to 26-7 but for the strike. Claimant's last day of work is 22-7. There would have been work for the rest of the week at least. Nothing perverse in Board's decision.
Decision 15112
Full Text of Decision 15112
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
casual employees |
|
Summary:
The file indicates that claimant, a casual worker, would have been called back to work for the week following commencement of the strike and therefore must be said to have lost his employment as a result of it.
Decision 15110
Full Text of Decision 15110
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
casual employees |
|
Summary:
Work stoppage 6-8. Replacing someone sick. Did not know how long. Called on a day-to-day basis. Being on call is irrelevant since it was the stoppage which caused him to lose employment. Scheduled to work 6 to 9-8. Union member eligible for strike pay.
Decision 14784
Full Text of Decision 14784
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
casual employees |
|
Summary:
Surplus employee who received benefits at the time of the stoppage. According to precedent, the fact of working part-time or irregularly does not mean the insured cannot be ineligible. She would have been called back had it not been for the labour dispute.
Decision 14185
Full Text of Decision 14185
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
casual employees |
|
Summary:
Nature of duties of longshoremen demands that they work only on call. They in fact worked the preceding Friday and would have worked on Monday to complete the offloading [pp. 7-8]. GIONEST considered. CIB-9490A applied.
Decision 14184
Full Text of Decision 14184
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
casual employees |
|
Summary:
Longshoreman who worked fairly regularly in January and February, about 28 shifts. Was to work 3 and 4-3 but not 5, 6 and 7. In evidence that he worked the working day preceding the lock-out on 3-3.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
part-time workers |
|
Decision 13650
Full Text of Decision 13650
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
casual employees |
|
Summary:
He worked for 2 companies on a casual basis strictly on a day to day basis. What he lost is not employment but the possibility of being offered employment. There was no employment which extended beyond the completion of the immediate shift. One cannot lose what one does not have.
Decision 13072
Full Text of Decision 13072
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
casual employees |
|
Summary:
Unemployed 3 months and recalled in 3-85; works some 3 weeks until 1-6 including 20 hours in May. Was employed on 31-5, the day preceding the strike and was expected to work from 2 to 8-6. The strike was the cause of his loss. Not a layoff.
Decision A-1415.84
Full Text of Decision A-1415.84
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
casual employees |
|
Summary:
Consistently held in case law that no distinction should be made between full-time employment and part-time employment and that situation of casual workers is comparable to that of temporary workers. Upheld in FC without comment.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
definition |
|
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
part-time workers |
|
Decision 09525
Full Text of Decision 09525
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
casual employees |
|
Summary:
Insured was at work on 13-2 and returned to see whether there was work for him the next day, when a lock-out closed the plant doors. When the loss of employment is attributable to the dispute, it is unimportant whether employment is irregular, temporary or part-time.
Decision 19620
Full Text of Decision 19620
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
definition |
|
Summary:
A lockout situation does not fall within the literal wording of s.29. If s.29 overrides s.31, then s.31 becomes almost meaningless. Statutes should be interpreted to avoid the conclusion that a provision is meaningless. History of s.29 and s.31 since 1920 examined.
Ss.28(2) does not relate to a disqualification that arises pursuant to s.31 or any other provision of the Act. It does not give a claimant any right to benefits. It merely prevents his action being classified as misconduct or as voluntary leaving.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
each word counts |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
legislation |
charter |
|
Decision 16582
Full Text of Decision 16582
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
definition |
|
Summary:
Claimant dismissed 24-3. Strike started 23-7. Following arbitration in following December, dismissal turned into a 6-week suspension and wages awarded from 5-5 to 23-7. Returned to work after strike.
Decision 16578
Full Text of Decision 16578
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
definition |
|
Summary:
IWA worker employed by contractor who had a hauling contract with Alpulp where there was no dispute and who signed an agreement with IWA. Contract suspended by Alpulp for fear of having other IWA members picketing. Claimant kept on but part-time. Not a loss of employment.
Decision 11171A
Full Text of Decision 11171A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
definition |
|
Summary:
Laid off before strike started. Pursuant to settlement of grievance, employer had to reinstate him retroactively. Accordingly, insured lost his employment as result of work stoppage.
Decision 13195
Full Text of Decision 13195
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
definition |
|
Summary:
Dismissal declared to be unjust and reinstatement ordered with full salary from date of dismissal to date of lock-out. No salary awarded for time of lock-out. Held that she lost her employment only on date of lock-out.
Decision 11877
Full Text of Decision 11877
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
definition |
|
Summary:
Dismissed 25-5-82. Reinstatement with 2-month suspension ordered on 17-2-83. Reinstated with full salary from 27-7-82 to 10-9-82, the date on which members of his grade or class went on strike. GIONEST distinguished.
Decision A-1082.84
Full Text of Decision A-1082.84
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
definition |
|
Summary:
The striker retains his relationship with the employer, while the person who resigns waives the right to return to work. Obviously, I [MacGuigan J.] agree with Marceau J., dissenting in GOULET, a decision that it will be necessary to reexamine.
This involved the loss of employment by the striker (or because of a lock-out), a very special type of loss which resulted from a collective work stoppage, did not create a state of unemployment, but was just a step in the process of solving a dispute. [Marceau, J.]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dismissal upon settlement of labour dispute |
|
|
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
| labour dispute |
rationale |
|
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
strike anticipated |
|
Decision A-1415.84
Full Text of Decision A-1415.84
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
definition |
|
Summary:
Teaching hours she had to work during 3 weeks of strike were carried forward to following month, so that she worked the same number of hours as agreed at beginning of school year. Nonetheless there was loss of employment. Upheld in FC without comment.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
part-time workers |
|
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
casual employees |
|
Decision A-0358.83
Full Text of Decision A-0358.83
summary
| 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.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dismissal upon settlement of labour dispute |
|
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
rule of 13 weeks |
|
Decision A-1198.82
Full Text of Decision A-1198.82
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
different employer |
|
Summary:
Union to which employees of contractor belonged on strike against company and certified during strike. While company did take steps to cause them to lose their employment, it did so because of its employees' strike. Application for leave dismissed by SC.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
directly interested |
own conditions at issue |
|
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
premises |
|
Decision 15879
Full Text of Decision 15879
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
dual employment |
|
Summary:
Claimant laid off from full-time job but continued with part-time job while collecting UI. Many months later, he loses his part-time job due to a stoppage of work. BOLDT and SCHOEN referred to.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
while claiming ui |
|
Decision 14704
Full Text of Decision 14704
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
dual employment |
|
Summary:
Holds down 2 jobs: laid off full-time 8-12, work stoppage 21-12 at the part-time employer. Files claim 8-12, ineligible as of 21-12. The loss of a second job does not change acquired entitlement. [p. 5]
Decision 12987
Full Text of Decision 12987
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
dual employment |
|
Summary:
Laid off full-time but continues part-time elsewhere while on UI. Then locked out; directly interested. Properly disentitled from any benefit. SCHOEN referred to. Inclined to allow as in CUBs 10481, 11475 and 12753 but here not token employment and bound by BOLDT.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
while claiming ui |
|
Decision A-1514.83
Full Text of Decision A-1514.83
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
dual employment |
|
Summary:
Lost his main employment due to the strike 15-9-78 but his part-time job continued until lack of work 30-12-78 and was no sham. Both were insurable. Employment defined in 2(1)(g). He had 2 employments. The loss of one is not the loss of "his". He continued to be employed.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
conditions required for disentitlement |
|
|
Decision A-0090.81
Full Text of Decision A-0090.81
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
dual employment |
|
Summary:
As to the suggestions that 44(1) be read so as not to apply to persons having more than one employment and to persons working part-time, I fail to see why the normal meaning of the words used should be thus restricted.
Benefits not payable in respect of various employments one may have held in the past. When UI is paid to a claimant who held, either concurrently or successively, many different jobs, the Act does not provide for the division and allotment of the benefit between the various jobs.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
rationale |
|
|
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
while claiming ui |
|
Decision 18216
Full Text of Decision 18216
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
hired due to stoppage |
|
Summary:
Called back to work on 18-1; lock-out on 20-1. The Board considered that the employer did not act in good faith. No evidence in this regard. An error in law to say that the employer must show good faith within the meaning of Reg. 49.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
Decision 15967
Full Text of Decision 15967
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
hired due to stoppage |
|
Summary:
CUB 10481 examined and distinguished in 4 respects. In CUB 10481, common knowledge that strike pending at time of hiring, hired as permanent and laid off upon resumption of work, hired for a task he had never before performed, employment obtained as stop-gap measure.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
while claiming ui |
|
| labour dispute |
directly interested |
own conditions at issue |
|
Decision 14490A
Full Text of Decision 14490A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
hired due to stoppage |
|
Summary:
Several questions remained unanswered and are necessary in deciding whether the insured was hired because of the work stoppage that was to take place shortly.
Decision 11475
Full Text of Decision 11475
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
hired due to stoppage |
|
Summary:
The appropriate finding here is twofold. First, the impending strike on 2-1 was the reason that this claimant was able to obtain secondary employment on 20-11 and ought not, therefore, to be considered as the cause of losing it.
The Board rejected claimant's argument because he could not prove he had been hired in an attempt by employer to stockpile material in anticipation of strike. The Board erred in placing such onerous burden on him. Its responsibility is to consider all evidence and make a finding.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
rationale |
|
|
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
while claiming ui |
|
Decision 11300
Full Text of Decision 11300
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
hired due to stoppage |
|
Summary:
If he had been hired solely to increase production before strike and afterward laid off against his will, I could have concluded as in CUB-8985 and 10481 that he was still entitled.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
while claiming ui |
|
Decision 21571
Full Text of Decision 21571
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
on leave |
|
Summary:
Regular employee, member of union, on vacation the day of the lockout, on 1-6-88; was to come back to work on 6-6. Evidence clearly shows he lost his employment because of a work stoppage. Had it not been for the lockout, he would have been called back to work.
Decision 20347
Full Text of Decision 20347
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
on leave |
|
Summary:
Left in 3-90 to attend course with recall date 24-5-90. Workers on strike 11-5-90. He returned to work after the strike. Many favourable decisions including GIONEST. However, based on recent MORRISON, where there is a specific recall date, the loss is by reason of the stoppage.
Decision 20326
Full Text of Decision 20326
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
on leave |
|
Summary:
On sick leave from 3-90 until 28-5-90. A strike arose 14-5-90. It has consistently been held that if one is prevented from returning to work due to a stoppage of work, this is tantamount to having lost his employment due to the stoppage. Disentitled as of 28-5-90.
Decision 18444
Full Text of Decision 18444
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
on leave |
|
Summary:
On sick leave from 6-4 to 15-8; there was a lock-out in the meantime, that is on 10-6. The loss of employment on
15-8 was therefore due to the work stoppage.
Decision 18293
Full Text of Decision 18293
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
on leave |
|
Summary:
Stopped working in 3-88 because of illness; strike on 5-4 which was still going on on 7-8, when the sick leave finished. Allowed by the Board on the basis of GIONEST. Decision reversed; not consistent with precedent; employment relationship not broken during the sickness.
Decision 18188
Full Text of Decision 18188
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
on leave |
|
Summary:
Occupational accident on 10-3; strike on 6-4; was to resume work on 25-5. A claimant who cannot go back to his job after an accident because of a work stoppage due to an industrial dispute is not entitled to benefits. GIONEST does not apply here.
Decision 17679
Full Text of Decision 17679
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
on leave |
|
Summary:
The insured person was sick on the first day of the lock-out. An error in law by the Board. Sick before and after, but he did not miss work because of sickness. He worked until 30-10, day of the lock-out, picketed for one hour and received strike pay until 7-1.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
by reason of a stoppage |
|
Decision 14416A
Full Text of Decision 14416A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
on leave |
|
Summary:
Maternity leave: 8-11-85 to 12-5-86; she had previously received notice on 4-10-85 announcing she would be laid off on 29-11-85. She would have been recalled on 1-4-86; the strike occurred on 7-4-86. Declared disentitled as of 12-5-86. GIONEST not applicable.
Decision 16589
Full Text of Decision 16589
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
on leave |
|
Summary:
GIONEST is different from the situation as here where a plan shuts down for annual vacation and work is to resume when it is over, but in the intervening period there is a strike preventing the re-opening. While not actually working, they are employed.
Decision 16556
Full Text of Decision 16556
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
on leave |
|
Summary:
Workers laid off 2-8 for 2 weeks (until 16-8) when mill closed for annual vacation. 5 maintenance workers called on 18-8 but would not cross a picket line. Claimant was not involved in repair work but was not called due to strike. Disentitled as of 19-8.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
attributable to dispute |
|
Decision 14558
Full Text of Decision 14558
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
on leave |
|
Summary:
Stops working because of illness on 27-10-84, receives wage loss insurance benefits and must return to work on 6-1-85; strike begins on 21-12-84; files a claim in 1-85. Different from GIONEST.
Decision 14416
Full Text of Decision 14416
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
on leave |
|
Summary:
Maternity leave on 8-11; lay-off notice on 13-12; maternity benefits until 28-4 and regular benefits until 12-5, date when she was to be recalled. Strike occurred on preceding 4-4. Cause different from GIONEST according to Umpire.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Decision 13647A
Full Text of Decision 13647A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
on leave |
|
Summary:
Injured on 4-7 and collects weekly indemnity payments while recovering from injury. Return to work scheduled for 23-9. Employees locked out 27-7. Correctly disentitled from 23-9.
Decision 14033
Full Text of Decision 14033
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
on leave |
|
Summary:
Last day worked 5-8. Surgery performed 7-8. Cleared to return to work 15-8, 3 days after a strike had commenced. Only reason for claimant not to be at work on 15-8 was a labour dispute.
Decision 11008
Full Text of Decision 11008
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
on leave |
|
Summary:
Maternity leave from 3-6 to 24-9; work stoppage on 9-6. Declared disentitled in September. Work stoppage that occurs in middle of maternity leave and prevents person from resuming work cannot be used as springboard for paying benefit.
Decision 09379
Full Text of Decision 09379
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
on leave |
|
Summary:
Claimant was away on vacation during the strike. He left on vacation with the clear intention of returning to work and if no strike had ensued he would have done just that. Disentitled upon return when making a claim. Clearly not entitled under ss.44(1).
Decision 09139
Full Text of Decision 09139
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
on leave |
|
Summary:
Electrical apprentice referred to an apprenticeship course from 18-6 to 12-8 and was to resume work 13-8. Employees locked out from 9-8 to 6-9. As he was unemployed while attending the course, it would be contrary to WATAJA to deny him benefit from 13-8.
Decision A-0661.83
Full Text of Decision A-0661.83
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
on leave |
|
Summary:
Employee of INCO who took leave on 27-2-78 to go and work with union until 9-3-79, at which time he did not resume work with INCO due to the strike effective 15-9-78. His loss of employment was on 9-3-79 and was due to a layoff by reason of a shortage of work.
Decision 69780
Full Text of Decision 69780
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
part-time workers |
|
Summary:
Over 19 weeks the claimant earned $4,215 or $221.84 per week. This worked out to be 62% of her normal weekly earnings of $354. Because her percentage of employment was more than 50% but not more than 70%, as provided in the table under Regulation 52(2), the claimant must be disentitled by three days per week rather than two as suggested by the claimant. See CUB 69779 where the claimant, averaging more than 40 hours a week at the time of the lock-out could not be classified as a part-time worker. See also CUB 69778: "Even if I accepted the argument that s. 52(1) of the Regulations applied, the claimant still would not be entitled to benefits as he would be excluded because his percentage of employment was 94% which meant that he was not entitled to benefits for five days of the week." All three CUBs relate to the same labour dispute.
Decision 69516
Full Text of Decision 69516
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
part-time workers |
|
Summary:
Member of the union working on-call 1 day to 40 hours per week - lost part-time employment due to lock-out. See also CUB 69517.
Decision 14184
Full Text of Decision 14184
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
part-time workers |
|
Summary:
It has also been held in the case law that not only permanent jobs are covered; full-time or part-time jobs, whether regular or temporary, are also covered.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
casual employees |
|
Decision 13040
Full Text of Decision 13040
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
part-time workers |
|
Summary:
Employed 2 evenings per week for 3 years when strike broke out.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
directly interested |
non-bargaining group |
|
Decision A-1415.84
Full Text of Decision A-1415.84
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
part-time workers |
|
Summary:
Consistently held in case law that no distinction should be made between full-time employment and part-time employment and that situation of casual workers is comparable to that of temporary workers. Upheld in FC without comment.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
definition |
|
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
casual employees |
|
Decision 68033
Full Text of Decision 68033
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
part-time workers |
Partial recovery |
Summary:
When the claimant lost her employment due to a work stoppage resulting from a labour dispute, she was on a gradual return to work status, working four hours per day - five days a week. The disability benefits she had been receiving from her employment were cut off as of the date of the lock-out. The Commission's position was that the claimant's loss of employment was not due to the claimant's health issues and that the claimant could not be considered working at a part-time employment pursuant to section 52 of the Regulations.
Decision A-0596.00
Full Text of Decision A-0596.00
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
Case similar to that of Gilbert Mercier. See summary indexed under FCA A-0595.00
Decision A-0597.00
Full Text of Decision A-0597.00
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
Case similar to that of Gilbert Mercier. See summary indexed under FCA A-0595.00
Decision A-0595.00
Full Text of Decision A-0595.00
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
The claimant, a seasonal wood scaler for Abitibi Consolidated, was unable to resume his employment on June 29, 1998 because of a labour dispute that had started on June 15, 1998. Declared not to be entitlted to benefits, on the basis of evidence provided by the employer concerning the possible date of return to work. The BOR reversed the decision, finding that no date of return to work had been established. The FCA upheld the decision by the BOR, stating that the Umpire had had no reason to substitute his own finding for that of the Board.
Decision A-0594.00
Full Text of Decision A-0594.00
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
Case similar to that of Gilbert Mercier. See summary indexed under FCA A-0595.00
Decision A-0593.00
Full Text of Decision A-0593.00
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
Case similar to that of Gilbert Mercier. See summary indexed under FCA A-0595.00
Decision A-0599.00
Full Text of Decision A-0599.00
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
Case similar to that of Gilbert Mercier. See summary indexed under FCA A-0595.00
Decision 45668A
Full Text of Decision 45668A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
Case similar to that of Gilbert Mercier. See summary indexed under FCA A-0595.00.
Decision 45669A
Full Text of Decision 45669A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
Case similar to that of Gilbert Mercier. See summary indexed under FCA A-0595.00
Decision 45670A
Full Text of Decision 45670A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0595.00.
Decision 45671A
Full Text of Decision 45671A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
Case similar to that of Gilbert Mercier. See summary indexed under FCA A-0595.00
Decision 45666A
Full Text of Decision 45666A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
Case similar to that of Gilbert Mercier. See summary indexed under FCA A-0595.00
Decision 45667A
Full Text of Decision 45667A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
Case similar to that of Gilbert Mercier. See summary indexed under FCA A-0595.00
Decision 25122
Full Text of Decision 25122
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
Claimant had not received a recall notice as of the date the strike commenced. In fact, he was not recalled until a few months after. The Board did not believe the claimant had any employment to return to during the strike. That was a finding of fact entirely within the Board's jurisdiction.
Decision 21236
Full Text of Decision 21236
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-1036.92
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
conditions required for disentitlement |
|
|
| labour dispute |
rationale |
|
|
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
by reason of a stoppage |
|
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
purpose of ui system |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of facts |
|
Decision A-1036.92
Full Text of Decision A-1036.92
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
It is argued that a proper interpretation of ss. 31(1) does not require that the first 3 events quoted in VALOIS ( labour dispute; dispute causing a stoppage; and loss of employment) occur in the order stated. It suffices that all 3 be present. I am unable to agree with this view. (see CARON)
Following GIONEST (quoted with approval) is AUBIN where, because an employer reserved the right to terminate the claimant's employment at any time by giving notice, it was held that the claimant was "not entitled to any employment and never enjoyed any". The Umpire, therefore, erred on this issue.
LÉTOURNEAU quoted with approval. If a person who resigns his position before a strike is not disentitled to benefits, then a fortiori a person who is laid off prior to a strike or lockout is also not disentitled to those benefits.
A case that is directly on all fours with this one is CUB_9830A (layoff one day before stoppage; s.31 does not refer to a loss in anticipation of a stoppage). This was exactly the situation in this case. I accept the analysis of the Umpire which is in complete accord with recent SC and FC cases.
The Umpire erred when he asked whether claimants lost their job by reason of a labour dispute; they, of course, did. He should have asked whether they lost it by reason of a "stoppage of work" attributable to a labour dispute; they did not. They lost it in anticipation, not because, of a stoppage.
Claimants laid off on Friday. Strike began next Monday. They did not have continuing employment following their layoff. The past (pattern of recalls) was little guide to their future. There was no recall date and no evidence that they would be recalled. A mere expectation is not enough (MORISSETTE).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
rationale |
|
|
| labour dispute |
conditions required for disentitlement |
|
|
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
by reason of a stoppage |
|
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
purpose of ui system |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of facts |
|
Decision 20136
Full Text of Decision 20136
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
Laid off by Company on 11-7-86 and expected to return to work 11-8-86. The Union went on strike 7-8-86. He was on temporary layoff. He had not severed his employment relationship at the commencement of the strike. The Board made no error of law.
Decision 15464A
Full Text of Decision 15464A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
Seasonal layoff 18-7-86. Expected recall 18-8-86. Not recalled by reason of strike. Claimant's employer was not a party to the dispute but a contractor for CIP who was represented by Forest Industrial Relations. Claimant was a union member. No error of law by Board.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
premises |
|
Decision 19771
Full Text of Decision 19771
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
Temporary worker terminated the day before the strike. It is suggested that HURREN and LETOURNEAU can be extended to this case. It would defy logic to suggest that the employer's action was not caused by the impending work stoppage. It was precipitated by the strike notice.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
directly interested |
temporary, probationary |
|
| labour dispute |
directly interested |
recall after stoppage |
|
| labour dispute |
directly interested |
employment terminates |
|
Decision 19043
Full Text of Decision 19043
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
I see nothing wrong with company offering work even though it was aware that employees had scheduled a strike. An offer made in the face of an impending strike with a view to having employees disentitled if they refuse would give rise to that result if offer otherwise legitimate.
Worker recalled to work after seasonal layoff to commence on day of strike. There is no doubt in my mind that had he refused to accept an offer of work from the company he would have been properly disentitled. However, the Board accepted that the recallwas a sham.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
claimants treated differently |
|
|
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Decision A-0044.90
Full Text of Decision A-0044.90
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
Casual worker with Loto-Quebec unemployed at the time of strike on 4-2. Notice sent to her on 12-1 requiring her services for the period from 9-2 to 27-3. No loss of employment due to strike. She had no right to it, according to Umpire. No error in law.
Decision 17664
Full Text of Decision 17664
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0044.90
Decision 18285
Full Text of Decision 18285
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
School bus drivers called back to work during the summer and locked out as from the first day. According to the union, it was just a tactic by the employer. Assessment of evidence and credibility. The Board found that the recalls were legitimate.
Decision A-0209.89
Full Text of Decision A-0209.89
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
Did not resume work due to dispute on date scheduled for recall from seasonal layoff of 4 weeks. GIONEST distinguished. No warrant for importing into ss. 31(1) a requirement that one must be "actually" working. It is sufficient if he has a notice of recall for a specific date.
Decision 16951
Full Text of Decision 16951
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
Difficulty in obtaining and renewing contracts because of the conflict. 5 employees were thus laid off because of lack of work at 4:00 p.m. on 15-3-88. Lock-out at 4:00 p.m. on 17-3. Loss of employment not caused by work stoppage. It is the stoppage that must be due to the conflict, not the lack of work.
Decision 16604
Full Text of Decision 16604
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
Camp closure due to weather from 5-8 to 15-8. Recall date: 25-8. Strike action commenced 19-8 when maintenance workers failed to report for work. MCKELLAR distinguished. No doubt here that claimant would have been recalled.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
casual employees |
|
Decision 16577
Full Text of Decision 16577
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
Seasonal shutdown commencing 11-7 except for some maintenance workers. The strike began on 7-8. Claimant was on the nominal roll for recall on 11-8 at which date regular production had been scheduled.
Decision 16557
Full Text of Decision 16557
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
Worker laid off 26-7 and called to return 22-9 but his union told him not to go. Disentitled as of 22-9. He argued that the company called the employees back in bad faith in order to deprive them of UI and increase pressure.
Decision 16202
Full Text of Decision 16202
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0209.89
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
rationale |
|
|
Decision 15560
Full Text of Decision 15560
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
Claimant laid off in early August because of a lack of work. Recall expected in September but that never happened due to continuing lack of work due to labour dispute at separate premises. GIONEST quoted.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
claimants treated differently |
|
|
Decision 14723
Full Text of Decision 14723
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
Lockout decreed on 17-10. According to the personnel office, the insured's temporary employment was to end on that same day. The supervisor statement has more value and in her opinion, the employment indeed ended on 14-10, that is before the work stoppage.
Decision 14416
Full Text of Decision 14416
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
Maternity leave on 8-11; lay-off notice on 13-12; maternity benefits until 28-4 and regular benefits until 12-5, date when she was to be recalled. Strike occurred on preceding 4-4. Cause different from GIONEST according to Umpire.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
on leave |
|
Decision 14168
Full Text of Decision 14168
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
Ceased work 1-8 and annual vacation shutdown until 18-8. Normal operations to resume 18-8 and claimant to be recalled 25-8. Picket lines 19-8. The fact of being on layoff when strike called does not save claimant from s.31. Case law found in CUB 7645.
Decision 12102
Full Text of Decision 12102
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
Employer laid off some employees on 1-11 in anticipation of strike on 3-11; however, bulk of lay-offs occurred when strike had broken out; must therefore conclude loss of emplyment was because of stoppage. [p. 12]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
conditions required for disentitlement |
|
|
| labour dispute |
rationale |
|
|
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
premises |
|
| labour dispute |
directly interested |
own conditions at issue |
|
| labour dispute |
participation |
definition |
|
| labour dispute |
directly interested |
recall after stoppage |
|
Decision 11573
Full Text of Decision 11573
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
Half of work force laid off on 26-9. Strike started on 1-10. Starting on 4-10, employees' absence from work no longer attributable to lay-off but to dispute.
Decision 11481
Full Text of Decision 11481
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
Left 5 minutes before illegal strike called at noon. I find it difficult to conclude this was not connected with the labour dispute which started 5 minutes later. He admits he left for that purpose. This is a bar to claiming now that it was for other reasons.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
by reason of a stoppage |
|
Decision A-1082.84
Full Text of Decision A-1082.84
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
Whoever resigns and leaves before a stoppage obviously does not lose their employment because of the stoppage. Always possible that the stoppage not take place. He lost his employment, not because of the stoppage, but because he anticipated that there would be a strike.
Not a loss of employment within the meaning of s. 31 unless the resignation was only for show, a way to set off the strike, such as joint resignations by a group of employees. This was a real, true, individual separation from employment. [Marceau, J.]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dismissal upon settlement of labour dispute |
|
|
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
definition |
|
| labour dispute |
rationale |
|
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
strike anticipated |
|
Decision 10685
Full Text of Decision 10685
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
Insured left on the day of the lock-out; board believed him and Umpire of opinion he should not intervene. Up to insured to show that s. 44 not applicable. 2 ways of doing this: leaving voluntarily or relying on 44(2).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
assess credibility |
duty |
Decision 10178
Full Text of Decision 10178
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
I found claimant left on 27-8 because of the imminence of the strike 2-9. He thought he would escape 31(1). There is an abundance of jurisprudence which holds that leaving prior to strike is a loss under s. 31.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
participation |
picket lines |
|
Decision 09529
Full Text of Decision 09529
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
The jurisprudence is to the effect that, where one quits due to an impending strike, he does not escape ss.44(1). Otherwise, all employees would be entitled to quit shortly before the commencement of a strike and claim UI, thus defeating the purpose of the Act.
Decision 09056
Full Text of Decision 09056
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
Claimant quit 1 day before the strike began. No error in law by Board. There is sufficient evidence to believe that she quit because of the impending strike. She admits having left earlier than anticipated because of the meeting held to decide on a strike.
Decision 08987
Full Text of Decision 08987
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
Laid off 1 day prior to the strike. The question to be decided is whether he was laid off in anticipation of the strike or for other reasons. This is a question of fact. The Board found the layoff was in anticipation of the stoppage, not due to work shortage. No error.
Decision A-1036.82
Full Text of Decision A-1036.82
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
Laid off in December. Disentitled from date he would have been recalled in April. Satisfied that he had no employment from December until resumption in May. He had an interruption of earnings which entitled him to UI. Issue on all fours with CLOUTIER. Upheld by FC.
Decision A-0833.82
Full Text of Decision A-0833.82
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
Locked out in off-season. Claimant may have lost an opportunity for re-employment. Even this is very doubtful: not recalled until 2 1/2 months after settlement. I disagree with CUB 4915. No loss of employment when one is already unemployed. Upheld by FC.
Decision A-0801.82
Full Text of Decision A-0801.82
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
Supply teachers laid off at end of school year; would have been recalled on 2-9 if there had not been a strike. Not laid off because of work stoppage. Possibility or even moral certainty of working is not sufficient, according to Umpire.
Decision A-0549.81
Full Text of Decision A-0549.81
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
Case identical to GIONEST. A person who is not employed who loses the chance to be employed does not lose his employment within the meaning of 44(1).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
labour dispute |
definition |
|
Decision A-0787.81
Full Text of Decision A-0787.81
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
Seasonal worker. Cannot lose what does not have. An unemployed person who loses the chance of being employed may lose employment, but not "his" employment; it was never his. He perhaps had the right to be recalled, but that is not employment.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
labour dispute |
definition |
|
Decision 16434
Full Text of Decision 16434
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
shortly after commencing |
|
Summary:
Premises struck when claimant was one week short of completing a 60-day probation period. Once the contract was signed he was recalled to work and, after completing his remaining week of probation, became a member of the union and benefitted from improvements won by the dispute.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
directly interested |
temporary, probationary |
|
| labour dispute |
directly interested |
recall after stoppage |
|
Decision 16068
Full Text of Decision 16068
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
shortly after commencing |
|
Summary:
Claimant argues he was only hired because of special circumstances. Case indeed unfortunate. He had worked on the job site for only 1.5 days. No reason why job must be classified under the ICI sector for grievance, but not under the ICI sector for 44(1).
Decision 15500
Full Text of Decision 15500
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
shortly after commencing |
|
Summary:
Claimant accepted permanent employment as cook on a trawler. His union struck the employer while he was a probationary employee. Distinguished from day-to-day worker as in CUB 13650 and seasonal worker in GIONEST.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Decision 14259
Full Text of Decision 14259
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
shortly after commencing |
|
Summary:
Student hired on 23-5 for summer period; on 2-6, she was moved to another division and work stoppage occurred on 4-6 in new division. No doubt that his situation is covered by 44(1).
Decision 14156
Full Text of Decision 14156
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
shortly after commencing |
|
Summary:
An opportunity for work for 2 or 3 weeks came along. He worked 9 days and then mill shutdown due to the dispute. Whether union member or not, whether he is working for 2 days or 20 years, if there is a stoppage, then he is disentitled.
Decision 13956
Full Text of Decision 13956
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
shortly after commencing |
|
Summary:
Hired on 13-3 as temporary to be laid off 25-4. Strike on 4-4. After 30 days he would become a union member. Despite his probationary status, he was of the same grade or class.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Decision 13896
Full Text of Decision 13896
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
shortly after commencing |
|
Summary:
Began training as passenger agent. Worked one day before strike began. Told by manager not to show up for work. Legislation applies as written not as we might wish it to be.
Decision 13713
Full Text of Decision 13713
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
shortly after commencing |
|
Summary:
As a probationary employee with an arline she was not in the union yet. She conceded that although not a member of the union and unable to participate in the strike vote, she did receive some strike benefits and also did some picketing.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
premises |
|
Decision 13126
Full Text of Decision 13126
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
shortly after commencing |
|
Summary:
The claimant did not inform the Commission of his one-day work. This resulted in an overpayment. Hired as temporary. The fact that he returned to work after the strike clearly indicates that it was not a "token engagement" as mentioned in CUB 12753.
Decision 12015
Full Text of Decision 12015
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
shortly after commencing |
|
Summary:
Recalled by last employer after 8 months of unemployment; strike broke out after 6 hours of work; still disentitled as long as (a) or (b) has not occurred, according to IMBEAULT.
Decision 11411
Full Text of Decision 11411
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
shortly after commencing |
|
Summary:
He was hired before the strike started, he commenced on 24-5 and was caught in the strike. Much in the same plight as claimant in CUB 9801; and the result must be the same. See also CARROZZELLA. In both of these, 44(1) and (2) are carefully construed.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
special reasons |
delay due to representative |
|
Decision 10157
Full Text of Decision 10157
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
shortly after commencing |
|
Summary:
Even knowing that a strike was going to break out shortly against employer, insured was hired for 20 week project. After 3 weeks, strike started and lasted 6 weeks. Sa,e class or status as strikers.
Decision 08985
Full Text of Decision 08985
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
shortly after commencing |
|
Summary:
Accepted work 3-11. Laid off due to strike 4-11. An analogy can be drawn with ABRAHAMS. If a "token" engagement in another occupation should not have the effect of restoring benefits, a "token" engagement should not have the effect of disentitling one who was otherwise entitled.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| refusal of work |
labour dispute |
|
|
| basic concepts |
loss of benefits due to third party |
default |
|
Decision A-0209.04
Full Text of Decision A-0209.04
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
The Commission rejected the claimant's application for benefits, even though her contract of employment had terminated, because the work stoppage due to the strike was not over. The Court ruled that it is the reason the employment was lost that determines eligibility. The Court found that the employment was lost when the strike started and not when the claimant's replacement contract ended.
Decision 59992
Full Text of Decision 59992
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0209.04
Decision 55819
Full Text of Decision 55819
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
Claimant became unemployed on March 13, 2002 as a result of a strike. Claimant's contract was due to expire on March 28, 2002. Strike ended May 6, 2002 at which time the claimant resumed his work for his employer. The fact that the claimant might have lost his employment during the period of the strike is not relevant in that it does not affect the clear application of SS. 36(1) of the Act.
Decision 32940
Full Text of Decision 32940
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
Long term occasional teacher lost employment due to labour dispute on 8-6-93 before end of contract (25-6-93). Cannot find relief under 31(1). References made to FCA in Imbeault(A-181-83), Hurren(A-942-85), White(A-1036-92) and Hinds(A-139-88). Claimantmay have been concerned with strike's outcome.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
casual employees |
|
Decision 26330
Full Text of Decision 26330
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
Teacher on strike from 8-5-91, contract expiring end of 6-91. No picket line during summer. Strike terminated 2-9-91. A few teachers resigned, so claimant got a new contract from 12-9-91. HURREN and CUB 18076 quoted. Did not have but an indirect interest following expiration of contract.
While claimant did not retire, as was the case in HURREN, and thus sever his relationship with his employer, I am satisfied that the expiration of his contract (in teaching) at the end of 6-91 effectively produced the same result. No obligation on the part of the School Board to rehire him in 9-91.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
directly interested |
employment terminates |
|
Decision 24335
Full Text of Decision 24335
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
It is true that the layoffs were not related to the stoppage of work, as the Board concluded. However, as the jurisprudence makes clear, once a stoppage of work commences as a result of a labour dispute, ss. 31(1) imposes a disentitlement until one of the conditions there set out has occurred.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
business discontinued |
|
Decision A-0814.91
Full Text of Decision A-0814.91
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
That the employees did not accept their dismissal, that they challenged its validity and took all means to be reinstated does not alter the situation since, in the event that they are successful, their dismissal will be legally invalidated and its effect will retroactively be cancelled.
The approach adopted in BERNIER is the only one consistent both with the letter and spirit of the law. The issue then becomes: was the mass layoff of August 8 sufficient to constitute a new prevailing cause for claimants' unemployment?
If the employer's decision to terminate the employment contract was not a means to weaken the strikers' determination nor an artificial strategy but a firm, final and irrevocable decision, it would assuredly constitute a new prevailing cause for their unemployment.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
settlement of dispute |
|
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
business discontinued |
|
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
illegal |
|
Decision 20138
Full Text of Decision 20138
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0814.91
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
settlement of dispute |
|
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
business discontinued |
|
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
illegal |
|
Decision 22216
Full Text of Decision 22216
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
53 out of 104 employees recalled to work on 24-4-91 (51%). Claimant and 10 others were sent a letter laying them off indefinitely due to business conditions and shortage of work. Allowed by Board. Held that the stoppage did not terminate until 29-4-91 when 80% of employees were recalled.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
rule of 85% |
|
Decision A-0270.91
Full Text of Decision A-0270.91
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
Should the disentitlement be discontinued when the employer subsequently shut down the project and laid them off? Counsel for claimant invited us to reverse this Court's finding in IMBEAULT. Despite the able arguments of counsel, we are unable to identify any basis for doing so.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
annual shutdown |
|
| labour dispute |
participation |
picket lines |
|
Decision 19037
Full Text of Decision 19037
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0270.91
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
annual shutdown |
|
| labour dispute |
participation |
picket lines |
|
Decision 21353
Full Text of Decision 21353
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
Dismissed during stoppage: disobeyed injunction and assaulted guard. Employer not interested in re-hiring but possibility of negotiations during back-to-work protocol. CUB-14636 applies; authentic and non-definitive breach; remains party to the conflict.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
regularly engaged |
definition |
|
| labour dispute |
directly interested |
employment terminates |
|
Decision 19520
Full Text of Decision 19520
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
Claimant says that he should not have been penalized for accepting temporary work. The provisions of ss.31(1) apply to employment. They do not distinguish between temporary or permanent employment.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
regularly engaged |
definition |
|
Decision 19062
Full Text of Decision 19062
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
I would agree with CUB 16581 that it must be clear he has ended his employer relationship and would not return. Further, it is he who bears the burden of proving the date his employment has terminated irrespective of the outcome of the dispute and thus has no interest. [p._10]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
directly interested |
temporary, probationary |
|
Decision 18704
Full Text of Decision 18704
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
Seasonal worker for the City whose employment ends every year at around 1-4. On strike since 27-1; the Board grants the appeal as from 1-4. IMBEAULT cited by the Umpire; it does not matter whether the claimant argued that he normally stopped on 1-4.
Decision 18325
Full Text of Decision 18325
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
Strike on 24-6; insured person dismissed on 23-8 following an altercation with a manager on the picket line. The issue is whether in this case there was a definitive severance of the employer-employee relationship. In fact rehired following a grievance. Therefore, no definitive severance.
Decision 18077
Full Text of Decision 18077
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
Contract ended 10-9; work stoppage 25-6. The insured person must really have left his job and the union, and not be directly involved in the conflict. See HURREN. The insured person in this case was still a member of the union; rehired after the stoppage.
Decision 18076
Full Text of Decision 18076
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
Hired for 1 year; the contract ended on 14-8; there was a work stoppage on 27-6. Many arguments submitted by CEIC maintaining that disentitlement should not cease before the end of the contract. HURREN applied. No longer a member of the union.
Decision 17900
Full Text of Decision 17900
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
One-year work contract ending during the work stoppage. Favorable decision granted by the Board which stated that the insured satisfied 44(2) immediately. Decision reversed: the insured remained subject to recall and had in fact benefited from a salary increase upon return. Directly interested.
Decision 17712
Full Text of Decision 17712
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
The situation of this insured person is identical to that of IMBEAULT where it was decided that an insured person is subject to disentitlement if he looses his job because of a work stoppage, even if it is recognized that he would, in any event, have lost it a few days later.
Decision 17650
Full Text of Decision 17650
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
According to claimant and her counsel, employment in any case was to end before the holiday period and the Board did not take certain judgments on that point into account. I cannot be in favor of that reasoning if d'IMBEAULT and CUB-13350 are taken into account.
Decision A-0139.88
Full Text of Decision A-0139.88
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
Hired for a specific period from 11-11-85 to early 4-86. Later advised that layoff had been postponed to 25-4-86. Premises struck 4-4-86. Case allowed by Board from 25-4-86 and overturned by Umpire. The Court says this case falls squarely within IMBEAULT. HURREN does not apply.
Decision 14613
Full Text of Decision 14613
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0139.88
Decision 15562
Full Text of Decision 15562
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
Claimant dismissed due to misconduct during lockout. HURREN examined. One single most important fact is claimant's desire to be reinstated. Grievance filed against dismissal. It cannot be said that claimant does not retain any direct interest under 31(2).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
directly interested |
employment terminates |
|
| labour dispute |
regularly engaged |
definition |
|
Decision 15500
Full Text of Decision 15500
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
Probationary cook on trawler transferred to another port during the strike. He could not follow transfer due to lack of seniority. IMBEAULT referred to. As he lost his job due to the dispute, it does not matter he might also have subsequently lost it because trawler transferred.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
shortly after commencing |
|
Decision 14021
Full Text of Decision 14021
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0741.87
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
directly interested |
employment terminates |
|
| labour dispute |
directly interested |
non-bargaining group |
|
Decision A-0741.87
Full Text of Decision A-0741.87
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
Substitute teacher on contract from 4-2 to 28-6. Disentitlement should have terminated 28-6, the day claimant's contract was due to expire. From that time on, no interest and no affiliation with those participating. HURREN referred to. Upheld by FC.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
directly interested |
employment terminates |
|
| labour dispute |
directly interested |
non-bargaining group |
|
Decision 14636
Full Text of Decision 14636
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
Claimant locked out 1-1 and then terminated 6-2 due to actions on picket line. Grievance filed and rejected. Union intends to negotiate dismissal prior to resuming activities. HURREN distinguished. Continues to be directly interested.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
directly interested |
employment terminates |
|
Decision 14635
Full Text of Decision 14635
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
Notice of termination sent to claimant at beginning of the strike to protect employer against possible future claims. The Board found that claimant kept picketing and there was no complete and final severance. Sufficient evidence to support this finding.
Decision 14430
Full Text of Decision 14430
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
Employment was to terminate on 10-4 and work stoppage occurred on 7-4. Several judgments considered, including IMBEAULT. Can only be terminated by 31(1)(a) and (b). Subs. 31(2) does not apply here.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
intent and object |
|
Decision 14014
Full Text of Decision 14014
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
Strike 6-12-84. Resigned 2-6-85. As per HURREN, an employee who voluntarily severs his relationship with his employer after the commencement of the strike can bring himself within 31(2). He is no longer participating or interested in the strike.
Decision 13956
Full Text of Decision 13956
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
Hired 13-3 to be laid off 25-4. Strike on 4-4. HURREN recognized that a claimant who severs his ties with his employment can come under 31(2). Same result should follow here from 25-4, the labour dispute having no bearing on claimant's employment situation.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
shortly after commencing |
|
Decision 13739
Full Text of Decision 13739
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
The claimant's contract was due to expire 31-10. As of that date he had no connection with the employer, the union or the outcome of the strike.
Decision 13738
Full Text of Decision 13738
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
The fact of his working an additional 5 weeks after the strike is not relevant [in deciding whether his contract was of fixed duration]. What matters is whether he was completing a subsisting contract or whether he had been rehired under a new contract.[p. 7]
If his contract were of fixed duration and would expire on a certain date regardless of whether work to be performed under it was complete, HURREN could probably be used to say that from then on his unemployment was not due to the work stoppage but to expiry of contract. [p. 6]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
directly interested |
employment terminates |
|
Decision 13350
Full Text of Decision 13350
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
Recalled to work for a few weeks, general strike after 3 days. Numerous decisions have held that even casual employees or those with irregular, temporary or part-time employment may be affected by application of s. 31. Cited IMBEAULT.
Decision 13039
Full Text of Decision 13039
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
Striker who left permanently 2 weeks after and quit the union; Hurren considered; may therefore receive benefit of 31(2).
Decision 12864
Full Text of Decision 12864
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
Claimant referred to the course by the Commission. The Board found that he resigned from union and employer to attend college effective during the strike, that he was not participating since then and did not belong to grade or class. This case falls squarely within HURREN.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
regularly engaged |
courses of study |
|
Decision A-0942.85
Full Text of Decision A-0942.85
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
An employee who retires (voluntarily or compulsorily) severs his relationship with his employer. He no longer has anything to win or lose. He has become a free agent. The source of his loss of employment, a critical factor under 31(1), is no longer relevant.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
rationale |
|
|
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
by reason of a stoppage |
|
| labour dispute |
participation |
duration |
|
| federal court |
reasons for judgment not stated |
interpretation |
|
| labour dispute |
directly interested |
employment terminates |
|
Decision 11403
Full Text of Decision 11403
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0942.85
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
rationale |
|
|
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
by reason of a stoppage |
|
| labour dispute |
participation |
duration |
|
| federal court |
reasons for judgment not stated |
interpretation |
|
| labour dispute |
directly interested |
employment terminates |
|
Decision 11839
Full Text of Decision 11839
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
Work stoppage on 7-5; insured replacing someone who was to return on 4-6; according to him, unemployment not attributable to stoppage after that date. Argument wrong in law and cannot be accepted; see IMBEAULT.
Decision 11808
Full Text of Decision 11808
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
Fact that submitted formal resignation on 28-9-84, before end of work stoppage, not one of situations provided for in 44(1)(a), (b) and (c) which provide for termination of disentitlement. See IMBEAULT.
Decision 11757
Full Text of Decision 11757
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
Work stoppage on 13-6-84; formally submitted resignation on 7-1-85, before end of stoppage; subsequently made claim; according to board: 44(2) written in present tense and issue must therefore must be determined as at time of claim. Error of law: see IMBEAULT.
Decision 11749
Full Text of Decision 11749
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
Work stoppage on 15-1-85. She argued that in any event her employment was to terminate on 10-5-85, date when labour dispute ceased to be real cause of unemployment. Argument rejected. Cited IMBEAULT and PERRAULT.
Decision 11475
Full Text of Decision 11475
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
Once it is determined that the loss of employment is due to a labour dispute, benefits are denied even where claimant is an unwilling participant or beneficiary. If 31(2) does not apply, then disentitlement continues until 31(1)(a) or (b) is met.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
rationale |
|
|
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
hired due to stoppage |
|
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
while claiming ui |
|
Decision A-1784.83
Full Text of Decision A-1784.83
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
Claimant resigned during the strike. He was not at the time of the dispute able to bring himself within 44(2). Therefore he is caught by s.44 until he can fulfill 44(1)(a), (b) or (c). The Board erred in terminating under 44(2). Upheld by FC without comment.
Decision A-0181.83
Full Text of Decision A-0181.83
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
The question that must be asked is this: "How did the insured lose his employment at the beginning of his period of unemployment?", not "Why is he unemployed today?" Leave to appeal to SC denied.
The past tense of "lose" means we must look at the time the insured became unemployed. It is the cause of the loss at that precise moment, not of his subsequent unemployment, that counts. Only 44(1)(a), (b) and (c) cause disentitllement to cease. Leave to appeal to SC denied.
Former principle that disentitlement terminated when dispute ceased to be real cause of unemployment is inconsistent with wording of Act. Disentitlement can terminate only under 44(1)(a), (b) and (c). Leave to appeal to SC denied.
Disentitlement continues until one of conditions in 44(1)(a), (b) or (c) met, even if, were it not for the dispute, the insured would subsequently and in any event have lost his employment for another reason. Leave to appeal to SC denied.
See entries under IMBEAULT
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
annual shutdown |
|
Decision A-0373.82
Full Text of Decision A-0373.82
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
Having found that claimant lost his employment due to a stoppage of work, he was not entitled to receive UI until any of the events in 44(1)(a), (b) and (c) occurred unless he proved both 44(2)(a) and (b). [p. 7]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
participation |
picket lines |
|
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
by reason of a stoppage |
|
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
Decision A-0352.95
Full Text of Decision A-0352.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
training period |
|
Summary:
NOTE: This case is virtually identical to that of Michelle Bouillon (A-351-95). See indexed summary.
Decision A-0351.95
Full Text of Decision A-0351.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
training period |
|
Summary:
Stoppage of work after four weeks of a training period of eight weeks. The claimant was paid by the employer during the training period. The FCA ruled that the claimant was bound by a service contract and was part of the employee group, like all the other employees. His salary was determined by the collective agreement, he paid union dues, and salary issues were central to the concerns of the strikers. Furthermore, the precarious and irregular nature of an employment cannot affect the very existence of the employment.
Decision 23625A
Full Text of Decision 23625A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
training period |
|
Summary:
Stoppage of work at Télébec after 4 weeks of an 8 week training period. Claimant paid by Télébec during training. Held that she was on a probationary period prior to obtaining a regular job which had not been promised her and that according to GIONEST, she cannot lose a job that she does not have.
Decision 29183
Full Text of Decision 29183
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
unable to resume |
|
Summary:
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
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
unable to resume |
|
Summary:
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
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
unable to resume |
|
Summary:
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
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
unable to resume |
|
Summary:
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.
Decision 16675
Full Text of Decision 16675
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
while claiming ui |
|
Summary:
Found a job working 5 hours a week while he received benefits and stopped because of a strike. The Board erred in law: it does not matter that the job is not insurable. In accordance with SCHOEN, no distinction should be made between this type of employment.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
not applying jurisprudence |
|
Decision 16555
Full Text of Decision 16555
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
while claiming ui |
|
Summary:
Claimant had been on the job for 5 days only when lockout took place. While one can sympathize with him who took the job when sent to it by his union, even knowing it might be of short duration due to the dispute rather than perhaps being disqualified, appeal dismissed.
Decision 15967
Full Text of Decision 15967
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
while claiming ui |
|
Summary:
In CUB 10481, the Umpire extended the token engagement discussed in ABRAHAMS to the facts of that case by asking whether such engagement should disentitle the claimant. He concluded that it should not. I would have difficulty in accepting this proposition.
Claimant works part-time while collecting UI. Belongs to Union. Member of grade or class of workers who were locked out. CUB 10481 examined and distinguished.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
hired due to stoppage |
|
| labour dispute |
directly interested |
own conditions at issue |
|
Decision 15879
Full Text of Decision 15879
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
while claiming ui |
|
Summary:
Claimant laid off from full-time job but continued with part-time job while collecting UI. Many months later, he loses his part-time job due to a stoppage of work. BOLDT and SCHOEN referred to.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
dual employment |
|
Decision 15087
Full Text of Decision 15087
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
while claiming ui |
|
Summary:
As an employee of a caisse populaire for 2 days a week while receiving benefits, she believes that the work stoppage should not deprive her of her partial right to UI. This argument was already carefully considered in SCHOEN and was rejected.
Decision 13734
Full Text of Decision 13734
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
while claiming ui |
|
Summary:
He had worked at that part-time employment for 16 months. Earnings were reported on cards following lay-off from full-time employment. At the time the stoppage of work commenced this was the sole employment held by him and, therefore, he is clearly disentitled under 31(1).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
regularly engaged |
definition |
|
Decision 12987
Full Text of Decision 12987
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
while claiming ui |
|
Summary:
Laid off full-time but continues part-time elsewhere while on UI. Then locked out; directly interested. Properly disentitled from any benefit. SCHOEN referred to. Inclined to allow as in CUBs 10481, 11475 and 12753 but here not token employment and bound by BOLDT.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
dual employment |
|
Decision 12753
Full Text of Decision 12753
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
while claiming ui |
|
Summary:
Electrician laid off from main employment on 17-8. Began evening teaching work in Sept. 6 to 9 hours a week while on benefit. Teachers on strike 17-10. FC and SC judgments examined. Loss of token employment or minor occupation is not the loss of "his" employment.
Decision 12728
Full Text of Decision 12728
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
while claiming ui |
|
Summary:
While on benefit, claimant accepted to teach one course for 3 hours per week. Work stoppage occurred in the 6th week and claimant disentitled from next working day. Found to be of same grade or class as full-time teachers.
Decision A-0398.85
Full Text of Decision A-0398.85
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
while claiming ui |
|
Summary:
After being terminated full-time, found part-time work while collecting UI. Part-time job then struck. This has been the subject of adverse comment by this Court. Insupportable on any rational appreciation of the policy of the Act. It is nevertheless the law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
Decision 11475
Full Text of Decision 11475
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
while claiming ui |
|
Summary:
Second, since the loss of employment which gave rise to his initial claim in 12-83 was not caught by s.31, it is unjust to apply it in respect to the loss on 2-1-85 of his secondary employment accepted 20-11-84 to destroy his eligibility.
One is not allowed to refuse suitable employment while on benefits. Claimant did what was required of him. He reported for work and then learned of the dispute. To now disqualify him would be plainly unjust, yet a strict reading of 31 appears to permit such conclusion.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
rationale |
|
|
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
hired due to stoppage |
|
Decision 11300
Full Text of Decision 11300
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
while claiming ui |
|
Summary:
Caught in vicious circle: if refused offer of employment, risked disqualification; if accepted, risked strike. Worked there 1 1/2 weeks and there was strike. SCHOEN applies regardless of whether it was full-time employment for indefinite period.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
hired due to stoppage |
|
Decision 09844A
Full Text of Decision 09844A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
while claiming ui |
|
Summary:
Accepted a job while receiving benefit and work stoppage occurred after 3 days of work. According to his counsel, s. 44 should not apply since income was deducted under 26(2).
Decision 09801
Full Text of Decision 09801
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
while claiming ui |
|
Summary:
Claimant on UI hired to commence as a probationary employee the day following the strike vote. Premises struck 3 days later. Held to be directly interested.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
directly interested |
recall after stoppage |
|
| labour dispute |
directly interested |
temporary, probationary |
|
Decision A-0140.81
Full Text of Decision A-0140.81
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
while claiming ui |
|
Summary:
Teacher teaching part-time while receiving benefit from September to February, went on strike in February. Decision she was not entitled upheld by Umpire. Application to reverse judgment dismissed by the FC.
Decision A-0090.81
Full Text of Decision A-0090.81
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
while claiming ui |
|
Summary:
If Parliament had intended 44(1) to apply only to the loss of the last employment before the establishment of a benefit period, it would have said so as it has in s.41.
A claimant who, after losing a full-time job by reason of a shortage of work, holds a part-time job while receiving UI is disentitled to any benefit if he loses that part-time job by reason of a stoppage of work due to labour dispute.
Ss.44(1) may have been read by Umpire as not disentitling a claimant from UI he would have been entitled to if that employment had not been terminated due to the dispute. That interpretation would produce fair results but s.44 does not disentitle one ofonly a part of benefits.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
rationale |
|
|
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
dual employment |
|
Decision A-0006.80
Full Text of Decision A-0006.80
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
while claiming ui |
|
Summary:
Accepted a part-time job and continued to receive benefit until stopped working because of strike. No vested rights because of 40(1). Wrong to believe that only initial employment may disentitle claimant. Case dismissed by FC without comment.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| claim procedure |
proof required for entitlement |
|
|
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
acquired rights |
|
