Decision 67605
Full Text of Decision 67605
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
participation |
by union |
|
Summary:
A labour dispute between the Public School Employer's Association and the Teachers Federation resulted in a stoppage of work at the various public schools in B.C. including the one where the claimant was employed. While the claimant is not considered to have financed the dispute or to have had a direct interest in it, she is nevertheless considered to have participated as she is a member of the Canadian Union of Public Employees and withdrew her services together with the members of the Teachers Federation who were employed at her place of work. See similar cases, CUBs 67604 and 67606, where the claimants' appeals were dismissed.
Decision 39832A
Full Text of Decision 39832A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
participation |
by union |
|
Summary:
Claimant's stated he was aware that the strike started 26 Feb. and he chose to return to work the next day. Claimant's representative said that he was too ill to participate in picketing and consequently was not participating in or directly interested in the labour dispute. Umpire found that the Commission is correct in not providing benefits to someone who is still employed by an employer who is therefore ineligible to receive benefits. The fact that he is still a member in good standing with the union also indicates that he was a beneficiary of whatever positive result the union obtained from the strike.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
participation |
definition |
|
Decision 25474
Full Text of Decision 25474
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
participation |
by union |
|
Summary:
Union worker who, during strike, accepts temporary employment some distance away. Same union but different local. Premises struck while claimant on probation. The Commission acknowledges that it is difficult to suggest with seriousness that claimant was"participating" in the union within s. 31.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
directly interested |
temporary, probationary |
|
Decision 19367
Full Text of Decision 19367
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
participation |
by union |
|
Summary:
As a union member, the claimant was involved in the strike, even though he did not picket and did not receive strike pay. Therefore, he cannot demonstrate that he was not directly interested in the outcome, or that he did not participate.
Decision 55320
Full Text of Decision 55320
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
participation |
definition |
|
Summary:
The BOR erred in only taking into consideration the position the claimant was working in at the time of the work stoppage, i.e. in a non-bargaining unit. It could not ignore the facts that he was a due-paying member of the bargaining unit, that he was therefore participating in as well as financing the labour dispute through his dues and, most importantly, the fact that he was directly interested in the outcome and did in fact ripe some benefits, including some benefits on retirement.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
directly interested |
in the future |
|
| labour dispute |
financing |
|
|
Decision 55299
Full Text of Decision 55299
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
participation |
definition |
|
Summary:
Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0375.03
Decision A-0375.03
Full Text of Decision A-0375.03
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
participation |
definition |
|
Summary:
The issue simply put is whether receiving support payment can be equated to participating in the strike. The Court confirms the Board's decision and held by Umpire that the claimant, in accepting benefits from the union, failed to establish that he did not participate in the labour dispute.
Decision 39832A
Full Text of Decision 39832A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
participation |
definition |
|
Summary:
Claimant's stated he was aware that the strike started 26 Feb. and he chose to return to work the next day. Claimant's representative said that he was too ill to participate in picketing and consequently was not participating in or directly interested in the labour dispute. Umpire found that the Commission is correct in not providing benefits to someone who is still employed by an employer who is therefore ineligible to receive benefits. The fact that he is still a member in good standing with the union also indicates that he was a beneficiary of whatever positive result the union obtained from the strike.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
participation |
by union |
|
Decision A-0800.87
Full Text of Decision A-0800.87
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
participation |
definition |
|
Summary:
A member of claimant's union, while drunk, entered the plant by way of a fire escape and attacked claimant who was working. Reason unknown and that member was fired. That mere incident is irrelevant in deciding whether members of claimant's grade or class participated.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
premises |
|
Decision 11295A
Full Text of Decision 11295A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
participation |
definition |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0800.87
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
premises |
|
Decision 12102
Full Text of Decision 12102
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
participation |
definition |
|
Summary:
Alleged that demonstration not intended to support strike picket. Nonetheless participation in demonstration created impression of support for strikers' cause, if only indirectly. Act does not refer to direct participation. [p. 16]
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 |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
| labour dispute |
directly interested |
own conditions at issue |
|
| labour dispute |
directly interested |
recall after stoppage |
|
Decision 15334
Full Text of Decision 15334
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
participation |
duration |
|
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 |
loss of employment |
by reason of a stoppage |
|
Decision A-0942.85
Full Text of Decision A-0942.85
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
participation |
duration |
|
Summary:
A disentitlement which has come into being under 31(1) continues until (a) or (b) applies. This does not exclude the possibility of it becoming inapplicable by reason of claimant subsequently proving 31(2). This is not contrary to the policy of the Act.
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 |
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 |
participation |
duration |
|
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 |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
| federal court |
reasons for judgment not stated |
interpretation |
|
| labour dispute |
directly interested |
employment terminates |
|
Decision 20494
Full Text of Decision 20494
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
participation |
hot material |
|
Summary:
While they may have had every sympathy for the strike and may have been prepared to refuse to do struck work, no evidence that any of the bindery employees was ever offered any struck work. Their work is not called for until the pressmen have performed their functions.
Decision 20493
Full Text of Decision 20493
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
participation |
hot material |
|
Summary:
Lithographers on strike. Pressmen refused to run plates prepared by management instead of lithographers. Pressmen insisted they were exercising their right under the collective agreement to refuse to do struck work. It was open to the Board to conclude this was participation.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
premises |
|
Decision 63282
Full Text of Decision 63282
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
participation |
picket lines |
|
Summary:
The Commission denied benefits to the claimant for participating in a labour dispute by not crossing the picket line. The Umpire stated that when employees voluntarily honour a picket line they are presumed to be participating in a labour dispute, unless there is evidence of a threat of violence or that there was no work for the employees if they had crossed the picket line. The judge found that the presumption that the claimant voluntarily participated in the labour dispute was rebutted by the existence of a reasonable threat of violence.
Decision A-0552.00
Full Text of Decision A-0552.00
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
participation |
picket lines |
|
Summary:
Before deciding whether the existence of an essential services order (ESO) that prevented the claimant from working proves that the claimant was not participating in a labour dispute, it seems relevant to consider the conduct of the claimant and her bargaining agent in the period preceding the issue of the ESO. In the present case, evidence showed the interest that Local 15 and its members had in Local 1004's labour dispute with the common employer, the coordinated bargaining strategies of and the ongoing communications between the two Locals and the opportunity that the applicant had to disassociate herself prior to the City's application for an ESO.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
directly interested |
non-bargaining group |
|
Decision 48786
Full Text of Decision 48786
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
participation |
picket lines |
|
Summary:
Although Locals 1004 and 15 may be separate unions pursuant to the provisions of the Code they can be described as sister unions working in harmony with each other and with CUPE (Canadian Union of Public Employees) National. Honouring picket lines is indeed a solidarity objective. Participation of Local 15 in negotiating the terms of the Essential Services Order would not have been necessary if the members of Local 15 were seriously prepared to return to work despite the existence of pickets.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
directly interested |
non-bargaining group |
|
Decision 20202
Full Text of Decision 20202
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
participation |
picket lines |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0838.91
Decision 19037
Full Text of Decision 19037
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
participation |
picket lines |
|
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 |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Decision A-0270.91
Full Text of Decision A-0270.91
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
participation |
picket lines |
|
Summary:
Claimants advised by their union to honor the picket line. Should the disentitlement be discontinued when the employer, a few days later, shut down the project and laid them off? The question "Why were they unemployed after?" is irrelevant. No basis for ignoring IMBEAULT as per FC.
A genuine fear which would take a refusal to cross the picket line out of the characterization of participation is a matter of evidence for each claimant. The same facts giving rise to such fear in one case might not give rise to any in another. No reviewable error by Umpire.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
annual shutdown |
|
Decision A-0269.91
Full Text of Decision A-0269.91
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
participation |
picket lines |
|
Summary:
The carpenters decided to honor the picket line and claimant refused to cross the lines to go to work. Had he done so the employer would have found something for him to do. Based on CUB 10182 this amounted to participation. The Umpire properly applied the relevant jurisprudence.
The only evidence that he feared for his safety was his remark about getting his head bashed in. That observation was completely unsupported by any objective evidence and in fact, if anything, was contradicted by the employer's evidence. No reviewable error by Umpire.
Decision A-0838.91
Full Text of Decision A-0838.91
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
participation |
picket lines |
|
Summary:
Based on CUB 10182 the Board accepted that claimant's refusal to cross the picket line was prima facie proof that he was participating in the labour dispute between the employer and the iron workers. I have no right to interfere with this decision. No reviewable error by Umpire.
Decision 19033
Full Text of Decision 19033
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
participation |
picket lines |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0269.91
Decision 19034
Full Text of Decision 19034
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
participation |
picket lines |
|
Summary:
Whether or not they would honour the picket line was taken out of their hands when they discovered that the general contractor had shut the project down and he would not permit them on the work site. They did not reach the position of having to decide whether they would refuse.
Decision 16665
Full Text of Decision 16665
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
participation |
picket lines |
|
Summary:
Bricklayer who did not cross the picket line set up by carpenters employed by another subcontractor. There is no doubt that the Board's decision, that failure to cross amounts to participation, is correct in law and well founded on the basis of the facts before it.
Decision 15259
Full Text of Decision 15259
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
participation |
picket lines |
|
Summary:
This is not a case of participation by refusing to cross a picket line. He was not given that choice by his employer nor told to attempt to do so when he presented himself at the work site, his employer not wishing his employees to be involved or concluding they would not cross.
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 15114
Full Text of Decision 15114
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
participation |
picket lines |
|
Summary:
Trucker employed by sub-contractor for a company whose employees set up picket lines at one delivery point. Whether claimant would have crossed had his employer decided not to send him there is not known, but he did not voluntarily withdraw his services.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
financing |
|
|
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
premises |
|
| labour dispute |
directly interested |
non-bargaining group |
|
Decision 13820
Full Text of Decision 13820
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
participation |
picket lines |
|
Summary:
There is a presumption that when one voluntarily honours a picket line, he or she is participating. Presumption rebutted if refusal to cross is due to a threat of violence or if there would be no work in any event. VALOIS and CARROZZELLA referred to.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
observations from the Commission |
|
|
| board of referees |
natural justice |
free of bias |
|
| board of referees |
hearings |
tape-recording |
|
Decision 13530
Full Text of Decision 13530
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
participation |
picket lines |
|
Summary:
I am satisfied that these claimants would have been inviting injury to themselves or their property had they attempted to cross the picket line [p. 3]. The law does not require a claimant to actually suffer a physical assault in order to prove non-participation. [p. 5]
Decision S-0879.82
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
participation |
picket lines |
|
Summary:
I concur with the following: "Not necessary to expose one's self to danger. Members of the same group must make a real effort to attend at work. However, if they cannot do so entirely safely because of violence or threats, they are not participants." [p. 14]
I concur with the following: "The purpose of the Act is to compensate those who have really tried to attend at work, see ss. 27 and 28. In the context of labour disputes, disentitlement applies also to everyone who supports the participants." [p. 13]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
rationale |
|
|
| labour dispute |
conditions required for disentitlement |
|
|
Decision 11446
Full Text of Decision 11446
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
participation |
picket lines |
|
Summary:
Service in cafeteria not needed during strike, so was advised the claimant's employer, a canteen operator, by struck company and claimant laid off. Even if claimant were thinking warm benedictions upon strikers, she can benefit of 31(2). You don't go tojail for what you think.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
premises |
|
Decision 10178
Full Text of Decision 10178
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
participation |
picket lines |
|
Summary:
The most common form of participation is respecting picket lines. Not enough for claimant to speak for himself alone. He must prove grade or class held same bona fide fear. Only those persons themselves can testify as to their individual states of mind.
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 |
participation |
picket lines |
|
Summary:
CUB 4222 quoted with approval: The test as to the personal motivation required to overcome the presumption is whether a bona fide worker, with a sincere desire to continue working, would not have attempted to cross the picket lines because he, with reasonable cause, truly feared actual violence.
CUB 4222 summarized what has been held in a long line of Umpire's decisions not questioned in FC or SC: failure to cross a picket line gives rise to a presumption of solidarity which may be rebutted by evidence to the contrary. [p.7]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
by reason of a stoppage |
|
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
Decision A-0879.82
Full Text of Decision A-0879.82
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
participation |
picket lines |
|
Summary:
I concur with the following: "Not necessary to expose one's self to danger. Members of the same group must make a real effort to attend at work. However, if they cannot do so entirely safely because of violence or threats, they are not participants." [p. 14]
I concur with the following: "The purpose of the Act is to compensate those who have really tried to attend at work, see ss. 27 and 28. In the context of labour disputes, disentitlement applies also to everyone who supports the participants." [p. 13]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
rationale |
|
|
| labour dispute |
conditions required for disentitlement |
|
|
