Decision 55196
Full Text of Decision 55196
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
annual shutdown |
|
Summary:
Lock-out on 19-03-2001. Claimant was to return to work temporarily on that date, and his layoff was scheduled for 31-03-2001. Dispute settled and union members returned to work on 29-04-2001. The BOR decided that the claimant became entitled to benefits as of March 31. Error of law according to the umpire. On that date, the claimant did not meet any of the elements allowing him to avoid disentitlement under SS. 36(4) of the EIR.
Decision A-0270.91
Full Text of Decision A-0270.91
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
annual shutdown |
|
Summary:
Should the disentitlement be discontinued when the employer subsequently shutdown 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 |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
| 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 |
stoppage of work |
annual shutdown |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0270.91
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 |
|
Decision 11581
Full Text of Decision 11581
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
annual shutdown |
|
Summary:
Strike 3-8-82 and termination 24-1-83. Benefits allowed by Board from 23-12-82 to 3-1-83, a predetermined annual shutdown. The Board's duty was to decide when the stoppage terminated. It had no legal right to allow entitlement prior to termination.
Decision 10631
Full Text of Decision 10631
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
annual shutdown |
|
Summary:
Board decided that end of stoppage had occurred on 14-9 because all work was completed on that date and all employees laid off as they were every year. Plainly erred in law. See IMBEAULT.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
not applying jurisprudence |
|
Decision 10311
Full Text of Decision 10311
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
annual shutdown |
|
Summary:
Strike commenced 11-8-82; new agreement signed and ratified 22-12-82; annual 2-week Christmas shutdown 23-12-82; 85% production reached 18-1-83. Claimant's submission that his case be allowed from 23-12-82 rejected as per IMBEAULT and CUB 9410.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
settlement of dispute |
|
Decision A-0181.83
Full Text of Decision A-0181.83
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
annual shutdown |
|
Summary:
Policy of closing for several weeks at Christmas every year. Former principle that disentitlement terminates when dispute ceases to be real cause of unemployment is inconsistent with wording of Act. Leave to appeal to SC denied.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Decision A-0183.83
Full Text of Decision A-0183.83
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
annual shutdown |
|
Summary:
Issue was Christmas shutdown. Arguments made assume that subs. 44(1) must be interpreted so that disentitlement ceases when the dispute ceases to be the real cause of the claimant's unemployment. This interpretation was rejected in IMBEAULT.
Decision A0163.12
Full Text of Decision A0163.12
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
attributable to dispute |
|
Summary:
The claimant was an employee of Telus Communications Inc. and a member of the Telecommunications Workers Union (TWU). On July 21, 2005, the TWU established picket lines outside Telus worksites after Telus locked out the bargaining unit. The claimant applied for benefits indicating that he was not working due to the lockout. The Commission determined that the claimant was not entitled because he had lost his employment due to a labour dispute. The Umpire confirmed the Commission’s decision, and found that the BOR erred by not considering all the factors for determining whether the claimant fell under one of the exceptions to the general rule that workers who lose their employment due to a work stoppage arising from a labour dispute are not entitled to EI benefits in accordance with subsection 36(1) of the EI Act. The claimant filed an application for judicial review. The FCA found that the Umpire did not commit any reviewable error.
Decision A-0094.03
Full Text of Decision A-0094.03
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
attributable to dispute |
|
Summary:
Identical case to FAC A-0184.03. See summary indexed under it.
Decision A-0185.03
Full Text of Decision A-0185.03
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
attributable to dispute |
|
Summary:
Identical case to FAC A-0184.03. See summary indexed under it.
Decision A-0183.03
Full Text of Decision A-0183.03
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
attributable to dispute |
|
Summary:
Identical case to FAC A-0184.03. See summary indexed under it.
Decision A-0182.03
Full Text of Decision A-0182.03
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
attributable to dispute |
|
Summary:
Identical case to FAC A-0184.03. See summary indexed under it.
Decision A-0186.03
Full Text of Decision A-0186.03
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
attributable to dispute |
|
Summary:
Identical case to FAC A-0184.03. See summary indexed under it.
Decision A-0184.03
Full Text of Decision A-0184.03
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
attributable to dispute |
|
Summary:
The BOR had concluded that the claimants had lost their employment because of a shortage of work. The Court is of the opinion that the Board erred in giving the benefit of the doubt to the claimants' witness while disregarding the evidence on record. The Court concluded that the Umpire was right to intervene. See summary of the Umpire's decision in Sylvain Dontigny, indexed under CUB 56057.
Decision 56057
Full Text of Decision 56057
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
attributable to dispute |
|
Summary:
The claimant lost his employment for lack of work because of the exercise of pressure tactics at the plant. The Umpire determined that the Board of Referees erred in concluding that the claimant had lost his employment because of a shortage of work. The evidence shows that there was a labour dispute at the site where the claimant worked and that was the reason for the loss of his employment. See the decision of the Federal Court for this case and others in Jeffrey Lepage, summary indexed under FCA A-0184.03
Decision A-0511.97
Full Text of Decision A-0511.97
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
attributable to dispute |
|
Summary:
As a member of the office employees union, the claimant was found to be directly interested in the strike by employees of the production employees union against the same employer. The claimant alleged that the only employees "directly interested" in the labour dispute were those whose conditions of employment were automatically determined or modified by the outcome of the dispute. Claimant’s allegations summarily rejected by the FCA. For more details, consult summaries indexed under CUB 37885.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
conditions required for exemption |
|
|
| labour dispute |
directly interested |
many unions |
|
Decision A-0512.97
Full Text of Decision A-0512.97
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
attributable to dispute |
|
Summary:
Case identical to A-0511.97. See summary indexed under this reference number.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
conditions required for exemption |
|
|
| labour dispute |
directly interested |
many unions |
|
Decision A-0690.96
Full Text of Decision A-0690.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
attributable to dispute |
|
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 |
loss of employment |
casual employees |
|
Decision 37885
Full Text of Decision 37885
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
attributable to dispute |
|
Summary:
Stoppage of work attributable to a labour dispute. Three unions involved, but all under the CSN. The collective agreements all expired at the same time. Umpire found that, despite the fact that security and clerical staff were legally members of another unit of the same union, they could not circumvent section 31. The claims were the same in several regards; the benefits granted were partially the same and everyone was waiting for the main dispute to be resolved to sign their own collective agreement.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
conditions required for exemption |
|
|
| labour dispute |
directly interested |
many unions |
|
Decision A-0611.96
Full Text of Decision A-0611.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
attributable to dispute |
|
Summary:
The employer ordered the closure of the jobsite where the claimant worked because of a dispute with the union. This action by the employer was part of a labour dispute which, for several months, had pitted employers and employees in the construction industry against one another on the subject of the terms and conditions of their future agreement. FCA maintained that the existence of a causal connection between the labour dispute and the stoppage of work is a question of law. Therefore, it applied the decision in J.D. Laval et al (A-0825.95), which found in similar circumstances that there was a clear causal connection between the labour dispute and the stoppage of work. Court held that both the BOR and the Umpire erred in law when they found that such a connection did not exist.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of facts |
|
Decision A-0825.95
Full Text of Decision A-0825.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
attributable to dispute |
|
Summary:
Umpire reproached BOR for having mistakenly dissociated the stoppage of work for construction employees in Quebec from the dispute between employers and employees that had been going on for several months regarding the terms of their future agreement. He did not accept the fact that the members of the BOR could come to such a conclusion based on the argument that the Minister’s intervention in the form of Bill 142 exacerbated the situation. Umpire saw the Minister’s intervention as one incident in the conflict, a way to resolve the impasse, a step in finding a solution to the employer-employee dispute. He did not agree that, because the Bill triggered the stoppage of work, it could be viewed as independent of the labour dispute. FCA upheld the Umpire’s decision and found that Umpire did not in any way deviate from the concept of dispute referred to in the Act.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
directly interested |
construction trade decree |
|
Decision 23200
Full Text of Decision 23200
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
attributable to dispute |
|
Summary:
Customers who anticipated a strike moved their work or delayed placing work with the employer. They were apprehensive about an anticipated strike. They took action to try to ensure that they were not caught in the middle. The layoff which the claimant suffered was clearly due to a work stoppage.
Decision 21225
Full Text of Decision 21225
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
attributable to dispute |
|
Summary:
The roofs not having been closed-in, water pooled on the floor. Pressure tactics caused the dangerous conditions existing at the place of work and thus caused the stoppage. The pooled water cannot alone explain the three-week stoppage.
Decision 17259
Full Text of Decision 17259
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
attributable to dispute |
|
Summary:
Claimants walked off 10-1. Summoned to report for work on 18-1. They failed to but were willing to do so 19-1; they were suspended until 8-2. Neither the dispute nor the stoppage terminated 19-1. Their loss of employment continued by reason of a stoppage due to a dispute.
Decision 16556
Full Text of Decision 16556
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
attributable to dispute |
|
Summary:
Stoppage of work commenced 19-8. In the present case, it is irrelevant whether a continuing fire hazard would have prevented reopening in any event since the primary cause was repairs not done due to picketing. Proof of fire hazard inconclusive in any event.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
on leave |
|
Decision 14267
Full Text of Decision 14267
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
attributable to dispute |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-1063.87
Decision A-1063.87
Full Text of Decision A-1063.87
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
attributable to dispute |
|
Summary:
It is clear that the work stoppage mentioned in para. 31(1)(a) is the same as that mentioned in the introductory words, i.e. a work stoppage attributable to a labour dispute, but not the same thing as the loss of employment caused to a claimant.
Decision 12992A
Full Text of Decision 12992A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
attributable to dispute |
|
Summary:
Various companies negotiating with various unions. Claimant's group locked out due to dispute at distinct premises, employer insisting on industry wide ratification clause. The loss of work was clearly due to a dispute; it was not a layoff.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
illegal |
|
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
settlement of dispute |
|
Decision A-0257.84
Full Text of Decision A-0257.84
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
attributable to dispute |
|
Summary:
The issue under 44(1)(a) is the time during which the employee contnued to be unemployed as a rsult of the work stoppage caused by the dispute. Another cause may arise and the point when the change occurs must be determined.
When the continuation of the work stoppage for the employee results solely from decisions of the employer, which are in no way imposed by the initial stoppage, although brought about by the strike or lock-out, the disentitlement terminates.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
partial resumption |
|
Decision A-0354.79
Full Text of Decision A-0354.79
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
attributable to dispute |
|
Summary:
According to the Umpire, the dispute was the occasion and not the cause of the stoppage: the employer had taken advantage of bargaining to try to reduce break times. We are of the opinion that the judged erred in law: the stoppage was attributable to the dispute.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of facts |
|
Decision 46110
Full Text of Decision 46110
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
business discontinued |
|
Summary:
A strike began on 1-10-96, but on 17-10-96, the employer filed a restructuring proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, in order to save the business. A proposal was submitted to the creditors on 31-01-97, but was rejected. The rejection brought about the de facto bankruptcy, but the bankruptcy was deemed to occur de jure on 17-10-96. Are the claimants entitled to benefits as of 17-10-96? Umpire said no. The operation of the business ended in bankruptcy, and operations ceased in January 1997.
Decision 24335
Full Text of Decision 24335
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
business discontinued |
|
Summary:
While the letters addressed to all employees by the employer may be an ultimatum, it is at the same time an invitation to accept the company's offer. It is not a statement that the plant is closed as of the date of the letter.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Decision A-0814.91
Full Text of Decision A-0814.91
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
business discontinued |
|
Summary:
As per BERNIER, one must determine the date upon which the strikers became in fact unemployed by reason other than the dispute. One may consider, for example, a definite plant closure by the employer or by reason of fire. This is the only approach consistent with the letter and spirit of the law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
settlement of dispute |
|
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
| 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 |
stoppage of work |
business discontinued |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0814.91
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 |
settlement of dispute |
|
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
illegal |
|
Decision 15331
Full Text of Decision 15331
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
business discontinued |
|
Summary:
Workers locked out 28-10-84. The majority Board found the work stoppage terminated 13-5-85 when employer decided to close the mine. The minority found this to be 31-12-84. This is a question of fact. No firm decision to close earlier and claimant himself acted as if not closed.
Decision 13665
Full Text of Decision 13665
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
business discontinued |
|
Summary:
The enquiry officer's report categorically contradicts this conclusion. If a tribunal can place subsequent facts on the table to provide a better interpretation of earlier actions, it is preferable to rely on objective facts and not on declarations of intent.
The issue is the time during which claimant remained in the specific situation of a person unemployed because of the dispute but still had hope and the possibility of returning to work, before becoming definitively and irremediably unemployed by a decision of the employer.
Decision 11920A
Full Text of Decision 11920A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
business discontinued |
|
Summary:
3 elements that make up dispute: insistence and resistence, adverse parties and points in issue. These 3 elements are missing here: no bargaining since 6-7, union members dispersed. Date dispute ended cannot be determined with precision.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
question not at issue |
|
Decision 12151
Full Text of Decision 12151
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
business discontinued |
|
Summary:
Employer made decision to close plant on 4-9; however, only informed Minister of Labour on 9-11; that is date that board accepted as date of work stoppage.
Decision 11920
Full Text of Decision 11920
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
business discontinued |
|
Summary:
Closing or at least substantial reduction scheduled for 15-1; lock-out on 13-1. Everyone is subject to demands of his or her union. Loss of each person's employment arose out of dispute. Even those who were laid off the next day were still disentitled.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
rationale |
|
|
Decision A-1340.84
Full Text of Decision A-1340.84
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
business discontinued |
|
Summary:
If dispute had not been settled it would have been logical to consider the date of permanent closing (2 months later) as starting point for disentitlement. Any other conclusion would be perverse. Appeal to CF dismissed without comment.
According to board, purely economic reasons and final termination during stoppage. Erroneous finding of fact. Dispute terminated when agreement ratified, not when employer stated intention to close store 2 months earlier. Upheld in FC without comment.
Decision A-0585.80
Full Text of Decision A-0585.80
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
business discontinued |
|
Summary:
Purchase of a building in Guelph is not sufficient to say that the employer was abandoning its business in Quebec. The Umpire said he was satisfied that work would have continued in Victoriaville if there had been no dispute. Application for review dismissed by the FC.
Decision A-0040.98
Full Text of Decision A-0040.98
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
existence |
|
Summary:
Case identical to S. Kump et al (A-0041.98). See summary indexed.
Decision A-0043.98
Full Text of Decision A-0043.98
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
existence |
|
Summary:
Case identical to S. Kump (A-0041.98). See summary indexed.
Decision A-0039.98
Full Text of Decision A-0039.98
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
existence |
|
Summary:
Case identical to S. Kump et al (A-0041.98). See summary indexed.
Decision A-0041.98
Full Text of Decision A-0041.98
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
existence |
|
Summary:
The employer had hired replacement workers in anticipation of a lock-out, and the Umpire found that the measures taken to ensure continuity of operations were not exceptional or temporary. The Umpire ruled that what was involved was simply wrongful dismissal, and that there had thus been no work stoppage. This decision was upheld by the FCA, which acknowledged that a stoppage of work that does not exist cannot come to an end.**NOTE: The Commission agrees that the measures taken by the employer are permanent in nature, and believes that its policy on the matter is not threatened.
Decision A-0042.98
Full Text of Decision A-0042.98
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
existence |
|
Summary:
Case identical to S. Kump et al (A-0041.98). See summary indexed.
Decision 39843
Full Text of Decision 39843
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
existence |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0041.98
Decision 39839
Full Text of Decision 39839
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
existence |
|
Summary:
Umpire concluded that, based on the evidence, there had not been a stoppage of work within the meaning of section 31 of the Act. The company’s operations continued normally in spite of the dispute between the employer and the flight attendants. The employer hired and trained replacement staff and took the necessary measures to ensure the continuity of operations. This amounted to a wrongful dismissal of an entire sector of the company. Therefore the claimants did not lose their jobs because of a stoppage of work attributable to a dispute. **NOTE:Decision appealed before the FCA. Commission believes that Umpire erred in fact and in law in determining that the employees received strike pay and were directly interested in the dispute.
Decision 39841
Full Text of Decision 39841
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
existence |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0041.98
Decision 39840
Full Text of Decision 39840
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
existence |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0041.98
Decision 39842
Full Text of Decision 39842
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
existence |
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0041.98
Decision A-0647.95
Full Text of Decision A-0647.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
existence |
|
Summary:
Held by FCA that Umpire confused the concept of the end of a strike with that of the termination of a stoppage of work. The Act refers to a "stoppage of work" and not to the end of a strike. The Regulations also provide the definition which is to be considered with regard to the termination of a stoppage of work.**Held also that the Umpire erred in reversing without justification the BOR finding of fact that the measures taken by the employer to replace the striking employees had taken on a permanent character and that it was unlikely the labour dispute would ever be settled. Evidence on the record amply supports the BOR conclusion.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
temporary measures |
|
Decision 21211
Full Text of Decision 21211
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
existence |
|
Summary:
According to claimant, more than 100,000 workers are involved in Quebec construction industry and only 800 with this employer, i.e. less than 1%. Thus the stoppage of work does not approach the 85% mentioned in the Act. Ss. 31(1) refers to the "premises" at which the claimant was employed.
Given that the construction decree does not allow a strike or lockout, if one party uses pressure tactics to obtain what it wants, the result may be a stoppage of work attributable to a labour dispute. This clearly happened in the case at bar.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
conditions required for disentitlement |
|
|
| federal court |
renunciation of recourse |
|
|
| labour dispute |
labour dispute |
definition |
|
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
rule of 85% |
|
Decision 15424
Full Text of Decision 15424
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
existence |
|
Summary:
In view of the insured person there was no stoppage, as the boats were diverted to other ports. Stoppage means stoppage of normal activity in the business where the insured person is employed, in this case the port of Quebec City. The question is: was there a work stoppage in Quebec city, not whether the work continued elsewhere.
First it must be recognized that it is up to CEIC to prove all parts of section 31(1), including the work stoppage.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
conditions required for disentitlement |
|
|
Decision 14332
Full Text of Decision 14332
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
existence |
|
Summary:
It must be noted that the jurisprudence has clearly established that the burden of proof is on the Commission to show that there is a stoppage of work. [p. 3]
Decision 13664
Full Text of Decision 13664
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
existence |
|
Summary:
Not sufficient to say that loss of employment was attributable to the dispute; it must be by reason of a work stoppage attributable to the dispute. [p. 11] The lay-off of 25% of the work force, or 150 employees, because of a shortage of work [p. 3] does not mean a work stoppage. [p. 15]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
adjournment of hearing |
|
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Decision 13307
Full Text of Decision 13307
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
existence |
|
Summary:
In order to constitute a work stoppage, there must be an appreciable decrease in output. [p. 4]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
temporary measures |
|
Decision 12771
Full Text of Decision 12771
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
existence |
|
Summary:
No need for a total stoppage. It is sufficient that the main activities are unable to be maintained. That a few sightseeing tours were still on going and the cafeteria open does not alter the fact of a stoppage.
Decision A-0340.79
Full Text of Decision A-0340.79
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
existence |
|
Summary:
Where all employees in bargaining unit cease working, there may or may not be a work stoppage. However, fact that cessation of work resulted in reduction of entire business's production by less than 15% is not conclusive.
Decision 27243A
Full Text of Decision 27243A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
illegal |
|
Summary:
According to the Board, if the "lockout" is not recognized by the Quebec Labour Code, it is illegal and the claimant is entitled to benefit. In so finding, the Board erred in law in making its decision.
Decision A-0814.91
Full Text of Decision A-0814.91
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
illegal |
|
Summary:
New collective agreement imposed by an arbitrator in accordance with Quebec legislation. Legal termination of stoppage 6-7-88. Of 25 employees, 17 refused to return to work. Their union brought the case before the Courts. Employees dismissed 8-8. Held that the stoppage continued until 8-8.
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 |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Decision 20138
Full Text of Decision 20138
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
illegal |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0814.91
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 |
settlement of dispute |
|
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
business discontinued |
|
Decision A-0556.91
Full Text of Decision A-0556.91
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
illegal |
|
Summary:
S. 31 does not impose any test of legality of the stoppage of work and it is certainly not for the CEIC, a Board or an Umpire to try to determine a difficult issue of provincial labour law. Nothing shows that what happened here was anything other than a labour dispute. FC agrees.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
temporary measures |
|
Decision 19727
Full Text of Decision 19727
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
illegal |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0556.91
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
temporary measures |
|
Decision 12992A
Full Text of Decision 12992A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
illegal |
|
Summary:
If the lockout is illegal, the dispute is to be resolved by another forum, not this Court. Strike or lockout need not be legal. Merit of dispute is irrelevant. The right to UI is not based on a concept of fault. The sole consideration is whether a dispute exists.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
attributable to dispute |
|
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
settlement of dispute |
|
Decision 13355
Full Text of Decision 13355
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
illegal |
|
Summary:
Whether or not ss.31(1) applies has nothing to do with attribution of fault for the termination of normal employment conditions. It depends on the claimant having lost his employment as a result of a stoppage of work which is attributable to a labour dispute at his place of work.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
strike or lockout |
|
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
temporary measures |
|
Decision 12827
Full Text of Decision 12827
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
illegal |
|
Summary:
The Act speaks only of a labour dispute as a matter of fact, disregarding whether it be legal, illegal or any other qualifying factor. [p. 2]
Decision A-0586.93
Full Text of Decision A-0586.93
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
lockout as a sham |
|
Summary:
School bus drivers laidoff every year at the end of June. Recalled on July 18 and locked out within one hour of the recall. The employer subsequently acknowledged (a supposedly new fact) that the recall was just a scheme centered on a power struggle. Confirmed by FC.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
case not appealed |
|
Decision 18287A
Full Text of Decision 18287A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
lockout as a sham |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0586.93
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
case not appealed |
|
Decision A0098.07
Full Text of Decision A0098.07
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
partial resumption |
|
Summary:
The issues raised before the Court were the definition of the appropriate work unit (factory, workshop or other premises) and the existence of a work stoppage. In setting aside the Board's decision, the Umpire did not identify the appropriate work unit and came to a conclusion as to the level of employee attendance by picking a number out of a multitude of numbers in the record, without explanation. As the Umpire has not justified his decision to interfere with the Board's decision, the matter is remitted to the Chief Umpire for a fresh determination. This in relation to CUB 67364 in which the Umpire overturned a Board' decision in favour of the Commission.
Decision 16553
Full Text of Decision 16553
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
partial resumption |
|
Summary:
The stoppage of work in 31(1)(a) is not the individual worker's labour but rather the employer's operations carried out at the particular work place. The test is not whether the strikers had been rehired but whether there has been a resumption of normaloperations.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
temporary measures |
|
Decision A-0257.84
Full Text of Decision A-0257.84
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
partial resumption |
|
Summary:
Fact that a number of employees did not return to work immediately after settlement of dispute was directly related to that dispute; open to board to find that the stoppage was continuing, without committing error.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
attributable to dispute |
|
Decision 20493
Full Text of Decision 20493
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
premises |
|
Summary:
M.C. Graphics Inc. of Saskatoon. The Board rejected the argument that the pressroom should be considered as a separate workshop from that of the lithographers or the administrative staff. I think that both in fact and in law the Board reached the correct conclusion.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
participation |
hot material |
|
Decision 15464A
Full Text of Decision 15464A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
premises |
|
Summary:
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. Laid off 18-7-86. Not recalled 18-8 because employer perceived a dispute at "his" workplace (union's patrol boats).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Decision 16592
Full Text of Decision 16592
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
premises |
|
Summary:
The premises at the commencement of the dispute must be considered as one premise at different areas of which sawmill and pulp mill operations of B.C. Forest Products were carried out. Subsequently a fence was built between them and access sought by a different road.
Decision A-0800.87
Full Text of Decision A-0800.87
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
premises |
|
Summary:
Striking members of another union, employed elsewhere by employer, established pickets at claimant's place of work. Question raised as to whether there had been a labour dispute at claimant's place at all. S. 31 requires a dispute at premises. We express no opinion on the point.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
participation |
definition |
|
Decision 11295A
Full Text of Decision 11295A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
premises |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0800.87
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
participation |
definition |
|
Decision 15465
Full Text of Decision 15465
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
premises |
|
Summary:
Claimant's union was not striking claimant's employer, and never established a picket line at his place. He was laid off because employer feared secondary picketing but did not wait to ascertain whether it would occur. No dispute at claimant's place, so44(1) does not apply.
Decision 15114
Full Text of Decision 15114
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
premises |
|
Summary:
Trucker contends premises in 44(1) must be limited to employer's place rather than where actually working. I cannot agree. While not employed by company but by sub-contractor, at least part of employment occurred at struck premises where he regularly delivered logs.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
financing |
|
|
| labour dispute |
participation |
picket lines |
|
| labour dispute |
directly interested |
non-bargaining group |
|
Decision 13894
Full Text of Decision 13894
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
premises |
|
Summary:
Question of premises not raised. Construction worker employed at a struck plant. The claimant was properly considered to have lost his employment because of the work stoppage at the mine. [p. 7]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Decision 13713
Full Text of Decision 13713
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
premises |
|
Summary:
The purchasing department is an integral part of the business, an airline company, so 31(3) would not seem to apply as it would not normally be carried on as a separate business.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
shortly after commencing |
|
Decision 12102
Full Text of Decision 12102
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
premises |
|
Summary:
Place of work of a delivery driver is home base and not route or truck itself; production employees in bakery on same premises and cannot rely on 31(3). [pp. 9-10]
4 factors to be examined in deciding whether premises separate: absence of operational integration, proximity or relative position of premises, nature of dispute and nature of 2 branches of work claimed to be separate. [p. 8]
Not sufficient that work be separate; must still be commonly carried on as separate businesses in separate premises under 31(3). [pp. 11-12]
Burden on claimant to prove that employment of group of employees to which he belonged constituted branch of work separate from work of other employees within meaning of 31(3). [p. 6]
Subs. 31(3) is not an exception to 31(1); merely clarifies what is meant by place of work, just as subs. 2(1) defines labour dispute. [p. 6]
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 |
prior to stoppage |
|
| labour dispute |
directly interested |
own conditions at issue |
|
| labour dispute |
participation |
definition |
|
| labour dispute |
directly interested |
recall after stoppage |
|
Decision 11446
Full Text of Decision 11446
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
premises |
|
Summary:
Service in cafeteria not needed during strike, so was advised the claimant's employer, a canteen operator, by the struck company and claimant was laid off. [question of premises not raised]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
participation |
picket lines |
|
Decision A-1198.82
Full Text of Decision A-1198.82
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
premises |
|
Summary:
Contractor's employees laid off because of strike between CIP and its employees. Where dispute relates to insured persons' working conditions, it must be said that it was at their place of employment. Leave to appeal to SC denied.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
directly interested |
own conditions at issue |
|
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
different employer |
|
Decision A-0223.83
Full Text of Decision A-0223.83
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
premises |
|
Summary:
Company operating 3 separate sawmills. Dispute existing at one of them but picket lines extended to all 3. Umpire held that the dispute was existing at the claimant's place. Decision set aside: no dispute at premises where claimant was employed.
Decision A-0162.80
Full Text of Decision A-0162.80
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
premises |
|
Summary:
As a result of the judgment in A-425-79, the Umpire reconsidered this case and decided that the office and plant located in the same premises were not separate premises within the meaning of 44(3). Application for review dismissed by the FC.
Decision A-0657.79
Full Text of Decision A-0657.79
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
premises |
|
Summary:
Construction of a recovery system carried out by QNS & Labrador Railway at Iron Ore. Lay-off to avoid problems during work stoppage at Iron Ore. Not work commonly carried on as separate in separate premises pursuant to 44(3).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
directly interested |
contracting out |
|
Decision A-0421.79
Full Text of Decision A-0421.79
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
premises |
|
Summary:
According to the Umpire, office and plant were two separate premises. Separate branches of work are not sufficient for 44(3) to apply; that work must also be commonly carried on as separate businesses in separate premises.
Decision A-0834.96
Full Text of Decision A-0834.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
rule of 85% |
|
Summary:
Claimant took issue with the application of Reg. 49(1), claiming that the date the protocol was signed (12-03-92) should be the determining factor for the stoppage of work referred to in ss. 31(1) of the Act, and not the application of an arbitrary percentage. Umpire applied the principle set out in Oakes-Pépin et al (A-38.96), which confirmed that Reg. 49(1) is still valid. FCA upheld the Umpire’s decision.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
charter |
|
|
Decision 22268
Full Text of Decision 22268
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
rule of 85% |
|
Summary:
The Board concluded that the stoppage of work ended at the time the new collective agreement was ratified. It made an error in law in that it did not consider the effect of reg._49. It is unnecessary to look to finding a date when the agreement was ratified. That is no longer the determining factor.
Decision 22216
Full Text of Decision 22216
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
rule of 85% |
|
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 |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Decision 21211
Full Text of Decision 21211
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
rule of 85% |
|
Summary:
According to claimant, more than 100,000 workers are involved in the Quebec construction industry and only 800 with this employer, i.e. less than 1%. Thus the stoppage of work does not approach the 85% mentioned in the Act. Ss. 31(1) refers to the "premises" at which the claimant was employed.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
conditions required for disentitlement |
|
|
| federal court |
renunciation of recourse |
|
|
| labour dispute |
labour dispute |
definition |
|
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
existence |
|
Decision A-0038.96
Full Text of Decision A-0038.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
rule of 85% |
exceptions |
Summary:
Collective agreement and return to work protocol signed on 21-12-92. However the workforce was only 85% of what it had been, and a 100% resumption of production was achieved only on 11-01-93. The validity of s. 53(1) of the Regulations was challenged. The FCA found that the moments when work and production resume are part of the circumstances for termination of a work stoppage, and that it is up to the Commission to make an assessment of the situation on the basis of s. 44(e) of the Act.** The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the claimant’s application for leave to appeal before it.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
settlement of dispute |
|
| labour dispute |
charter |
|
|
Decision 23516A
Full Text of Decision 23516A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
rule of 85% |
exceptions |
Summary:
It is deemed that it is not sufficient for the Board to conclude that Reg. 49(2)(b) can lead to an application on the basis of economic change; the 85% rule must be examined taking into account the normal readjusted rates in accordance with new circumstances. Error in law.
Decision 25239
Full Text of Decision 25239
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
rule of 85% |
exceptions |
Summary:
I have not been satisfied that the build-up of inventory prior to a strike or lockout, which can delay the resumption of employment beyond 85%, is an "event" which creates an exception under s. 49.
Decision A-0038.96
Full Text of Decision A-0038.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
settlement of dispute |
|
Summary:
Collective agreement and return to work protocol signed on 21-12-92. However the workforce was only 85% of what it had been, and a 100% resumption of production was achieved only on 11-01-93. The validity of s. 53(1) of the Regulations was challenged. The FCA found that the moments when work and production resume are part of the circumstances for termination of a work stoppage, and that it is up to the Commission to make an assessment of the situation on the basis of s. 44(e) of the Act.** The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the claimant’s application for leave to appeal before it.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
rule of 85% |
exceptions |
| labour dispute |
charter |
|
|
Decision 31276
Full Text of Decision 31276
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
settlement of dispute |
|
Summary:
Return to work agreement signed on 21-12-92, but 85% level reached on 11-1-93. Validity of s. 49(1)of Regulations contested. Ruled that the special provisions of new s. 31(1) and 44(e) of the Act, and of 49(1) of the Regulations, could not be ignored. The Commission acted as authorized to under the Act.
Decision A-0814.91
Full Text of Decision A-0814.91
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
settlement of dispute |
|
Summary:
The only firm principle of law in the case of CARON: the end of the labour dispute and the termination of the stoppage of work are two distinct circumstances which may not coincide. One should rely on the facts applicable in this case. The intent of the parties is relevant.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
business discontinued |
|
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
| 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 |
stoppage of work |
settlement of dispute |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0814.91
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 |
business discontinued |
|
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
illegal |
|
Decision S-1063.87
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
settlement of dispute |
|
Summary:
I do not read the FC majority reasons as stating that the end of the dispute necessarily implies termination of the stoppage in every case. Although they occurred on the same day in this case, this may not be the situation in other cases.
68% of workers recalled in aluminum plant on the day the agreement was signed. Nothing in the legislation supports criteria such as level of production and number of employees. Although the end of the dispute and stoppage coincided here, this may not always be so. [Act amended since]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
strike or lockout |
|
Decision 17761
Full Text of Decision 17761
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
settlement of dispute |
|
Summary:
If it were not for the fact that claimant received strike pay until 1-7-89, I would find as a fact based on evidence that the dispute ended 24-2-89. However, in view of the strike pay, I am unable to find that the dispute ended earlier than 1-7-89.
The question of when there is a termination of a stoppage of work is one of fact to be determined in the individual circumstances of each case. Here, it is clear that the stoppage and the dispute have terminated. The so-called obligation to negotiate nolonger has any meaning.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
temporary measures |
|
Decision A-0512.88
Full Text of Decision A-0512.88
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
settlement of dispute |
|
Summary:
The Board erred in law in stating that the tentative agreement brought to an end the dispute. Such agreement, by definition, has no effect until it is made definitive. It was never ratified and never took effect; the reasons why are not important. Leave to appeal to SC denied.
Decision 12992A
Full Text of Decision 12992A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
settlement of dispute |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0512.88
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
attributable to dispute |
|
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
illegal |
|
Decision 12992
Full Text of Decision 12992
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
settlement of dispute |
|
Summary:
The jurisprudence to which I have referred shows that it is not unusual nor illegal to suspend finalization of a settlement with one union pending settlement with another union with which the employer or allied companies are bargaining.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
not a trial de novo |
|
Decision 12382
Full Text of Decision 12382
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
settlement of dispute |
|
Summary:
Back-to-work proposal accepted at claimant's place but not at other premises. Proposal contingent upon adoption by all companies in bargaining unit. In fact there was no agreement. One party cannot make an agreement. Irrelevant that later agreement was in same terms. [p. 3-4]
Decision 11902
Full Text of Decision 11902
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
settlement of dispute |
|
Summary:
Employees not recalled immediately after settlement of dispute. Clear that, according to emplyer, lay-off was attributable to dispute that had brought about decrease in orders. This is explanation board accepted.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
conditions required for disentitlement |
|
|
Decision 11133
Full Text of Decision 11133
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
settlement of dispute |
|
Summary:
Up to board to determine date of termination of stoppage, which does not necessarily coincide with date of settlement of dispute. Dispute settled on 16-11-83 and stoppage terminated on 1-1-84.
Decision 10716
Full Text of Decision 10716
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
settlement of dispute |
|
Summary:
Cannot isolate stoppage and dispute. Do not agree that disentitlement continued after agreement: some employees recalled, dispute terminated, strike over, stoppage not attributable to dispute, role of union ceased, the rest depended only on the employer.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
assess credibility |
duty |
Decision 10311
Full Text of Decision 10311
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
settlement of dispute |
|
Summary:
Claimant argues that continuation of the disentitlement after the end of the dispute infringes the freedom of association guaranteed by the Charter. I cannot agree with this. Even if s.31 limits the employees' right to strike, it would not be an infringement of the Charter.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
annual shutdown |
|
Decision 73844
Full Text of Decision 73844
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
strike or lockout |
|
Summary:
The claimant lost her employment because of a work stoppage arising from a labour dispute. The BoR asked whether the claimant met the conditions under which a claimant may be excused from a disentitlement, which are as follows: the claimant must not have participated in the dispute; the claimant must not have financed the dispute; and the claimant must not have been directly interested in the dispute. It was business as usual for the company, even though the employer and the flight attendants were embroiled in a dispute. By hiring and training replacement employees, the employer took the measures required to ensure that operations would continue. However, this constitutes no more or no less than an unjustified dismissal of a complete sector of the firm. It was determined that the claimants did not lose their employment due to a work stoppage resulting from a labour dispute and that her right to benefits must be restored. Claimant’s appeal is allowed.
Decision 73110
Full Text of Decision 73110
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
strike or lockout |
|
Summary:
The claimant did not qualify for benefits because she was involved in a labour dispute that she had helped finance by paying union dues manned the picket line and received the $230. per week as strike pay. She was directly interested in the results of the labour dispute pursuant to section 36 of the EI Act. The collective bargaining agreement had expired on August 2008 and the strike and lockout commenced September 2008. A tentative agreement was reached on October 2008 and, following the ratification vote, all members of the bargaining unity returned to work November 2008. The claimant's appeal is dismissed by the Umpire.
Decision S-1063.87
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
strike or lockout |
|
Summary:
As per FC, a stoppage always results from the fact that one party to a contract does not wish to perform it. If it is the employer, it is called a lockout, otherwise it is a strike. It is the lack of intent which is the essence of a stoppage. SC in substantial agreement.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
settlement of dispute |
|
Decision 13355
Full Text of Decision 13355
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
strike or lockout |
|
Summary:
Assuming that the cessation of work by union members was brought about by the lock-out rather than the strike, that does not make that termination of work any less attributable to the labour dispute which preceded. It is playing with words to argue otherwise. [p. 3]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
illegal |
|
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
temporary measures |
|
Decision 12181
Full Text of Decision 12181
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
strike or lockout |
|
Summary:
Whether a lockout causes a stoppage of work or a strike causes a stoppage of work we have a labour dispute.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
reason for existence of boards |
|
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
Decision 11611
Full Text of Decision 11611
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
strike or lockout |
|
Summary:
This was not a strike but a lockout. Either way there was a stoppage of work attributable to a labour dispute.
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 |
dual status |
|
Decision 11590
Full Text of Decision 11590
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
strike or lockout |
|
Summary:
The Board referred to a strike and that was an error because the situation here was a lockout. However, whether a lockout or a strike, ss.2(1) is quite clear.
Decision 11456
Full Text of Decision 11456
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
strike or lockout |
|
Summary:
A work stoppage may be a euphemism for a strike but is not a definition. A work stoppage may be caused by a strike but equally by a lock-out or even by a fire or explosion. A very brief work stoppage is caused by a fire-drill. The kind required is one due to a labour dispute.
The kind of stoppage of work amounting to a loss of UI benefits is one due to a labour dispute. A strike is certainly a manifestation of a labour dispute and the strike was, in and of itself, a work stoppage.
Decision 10907
Full Text of Decision 10907
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
strike or lockout |
|
Summary:
Regardless of whether work stoppage caused by lock-out and not strike, consequences for insured are same. Subs. 44(4) defines "labour dispute" as any dispute between employers and employees connected with employment.
Decision A-0647.95
Full Text of Decision A-0647.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
temporary measures |
|
Summary:
Held by FCA that Umpire confused the concept of the end of a strike with that of the termination of a stoppage of work. The Act refers to a "stoppage of work" and not to the end of a strike. The Regulations also provide the definition which is to be considered with regard to the termination of a stoppage of work.**Held also that the Umpire erred in reversing without justification the BOR finding of fact that the measures taken by the employer to replace the striking employees had taken on a permanent character and that it was unlikely the labour dispute would ever be settled. Evidence on the record amply supports the BOR conclusion.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
existence |
|
Decision 28905
Full Text of Decision 28905
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
temporary measures |
|
Summary:
If ss. 49(3) applies, 49(1) and (2) are irrelevant. Under the Manitoba Act, the employer is not allowed to keep replacement workers longer than duration of stoppage of work, and as the bargaining unit has not yet written to the employer saying the strike is over, there is still a stoppage of work.
Decision 21842
Full Text of Decision 21842
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
temporary measures |
|
Summary:
Projectionists locked out. Picket lines established. The theatres were completely closed for one day and then re-opened using management and replacement workers. This was a temporary measure until settlement was reached. The projectionists later returned to work.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
rationale |
|
|
| labour dispute |
charter |
|
|
Decision 19727
Full Text of Decision 19727
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
temporary measures |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0556.91
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
illegal |
|
Decision A-0556.91
Full Text of Decision A-0556.91
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
temporary measures |
|
Summary:
It is argued that because management brought in substitute workers to keep the cinemas going there was no stoppage. The jurisprudence is clear in cases where work is maintained through extraordinary means and not by the return of the majority of the previous workers. FC agrees.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
illegal |
|
Decision 20365
Full Text of Decision 20365
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
temporary measures |
|
Summary:
Projectionists locked out 11-10 but the theatre reopened 12-10 using a combination of newly-hired workers and management personnel. I am satisfied that there was evidence before the Board to conclude that extraordinary means had been used to maintain operations.
Decision 17761
Full Text of Decision 17761
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
temporary measures |
|
Summary:
The stoppage of work terminated once there were no jobs for the employees to return to, the employer had resumed normal operations through permanent re-routing and automation, and the union has virtually abandoned the negotiations and is attempting to find new jobs for employees.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
settlement of dispute |
|
Decision 16553
Full Text of Decision 16553
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
temporary measures |
|
Summary:
Contract job due to be completed 31-3. All pipefitters, after having been refused increased wages, called in sick on 9-3. The employer dismissed them all and replaced them with new workers. Operations resumed 12-3 and contract completed on due date. Stoppage of work ended 12-3.
Legislation contemplates an employee continuing to refuse to work but who, nevertheless, by accepting may resume his employment. Pipefitters here no longer had the option to return to work as replacement were hired to complete the contract. Picketing does not alter this.
The word "temporary" referred to in the jurisprudence relates to the employment for which the former employees were engaged which may be temporary. "Extraordinary" means pressing into service persons to do the work of others. Replacement hired here to complete the contract.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
partial resumption |
|
Decision 15919
Full Text of Decision 15919
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
temporary measures |
|
Summary:
Although close to pre-stoppage work levels were maintained, extraordinary measures [overtime of supervisors and contracting out of certain work] had to be adopted in order to do so. As per SIMONEAU, this does not avoid a work stoppage.
Decision 13355
Full Text of Decision 13355
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
temporary measures |
|
Summary:
The mere maintenance of production by extraordinary means does not avoid a work stoppage: see SIMONEAU. The operation of the plant had not returned to normal in the sense of having a full complement, or nearly full complement, of regular work staff. [p.4]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
illegal |
|
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
strike or lockout |
|
Decision 13307
Full Text of Decision 13307
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
temporary measures |
|
Summary:
8 union members locked out out of 10, 6 new employees hired temporarily through an agency plus supervisors' cooperation. Reliance by the employer on temporary help had not been an uncommon practice in the past. [p. 2]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
existence |
|
Decision A-0143.80
Full Text of Decision A-0143.80
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
temporary measures |
|
Summary:
25 CJMS employees on strike. During work stoppage, employer applied temporary and exceptional measures. Simply because it was able to maintain or restore production, it cannot be concluded that its employees' work stoppage had terminated.
