Summary of Issue: Charter

Decision 67020 Full Text of Decision 67020

The claimant's presented four arguments under sections 2(a), 2(d), 12 and 15 (1) of the Charter which were rejected upon analysis by the Umpire. Here are the arguments: 1. s. 36 discriminates against a recognizable or distinguishable group, the labourer, and it can be used by the employer in "break-the-union" labour disputes; 2. the Commission's questionnaire that enquired whether he attempted to cross the picket line infringes his freedom of conscience because attempting to cross a picket line could have the perpetrator banned from his or her union and subject to onerous fines and that crossing a picket line may violate a person's conscience if they believed in the purpose underlying the labour dispute; 3. the questionnaire also infringes on his freedom of association because it infers that someone involved in a labour dispute could be eligible for benefits if they did attempt to cross the picket line; and 4. the questionnaire violates the right to protection against cruel and unusual treatment or punishment because its existence and the questions it asks, give false hope for some kind of financial relief which is especially cruel in a protracted labour dispute.

Decision A-0834.96 Full Text of Decision A-0834.96

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.

Decision A-0038.96 Full Text of Decision A-0038.96

The claimant is challenging the validity of s. 53 of the Regulations, which defines the circumstances in which a stoppage of work attributable to a labour dispute is terminated, and is claiming that this provision is completely arbitrary. Referring to the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Caron case, where the Court acknowledged that the end of a dispute may not always coincide with the end of a work stoppage, the FCA dismissed the claimant’s application, ruling that the relevant provisions of the Act and Regulations are perfectly clear.** The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the claimant’s application for leave to appeal before it.

Decision 21842 Full Text of Decision 21842

It is argued that s.31 offends the Charter because it discriminates between unionized and non-unionized workers. It is a stoppage of work due to a labour dispute which brings s.31 into play, not whether workers are unionized. It also includes disputes by non-unionized workers.

Decision 17026A Full Text of Decision 17026A

The Charter jurisprudence seems fairly uniformly to establish that distinctions based on employment status (former paras. (b) and (c) of s.31) are not analogous grounds to those enumerated in s.15 and therefore do not fall within the protection affordedby that section.

Decision 14715 Full Text of Decision 14715

Refer to: A-0226.88

Decision A-0226.88 Full Text of Decision A-0226.88

As to the alleged infringement of claimant's equality rights, the Umpire was bound by this Court's decision in ZWARICH which held that ss. 31(1) did not contravene s. 7 and 15 of the Charter. Leave to appeal to SC denied. The substance of claimant's arguments under par. 2(b) of the Charter as to its effect on her freedom to associate with others in a trade union have all been addressed and dismissed by the Supreme Court of Canada. Leave to appeal to SC denied. Right of union to strike not protected by members' freedom of association and the consequence to exercise that right cannot infringe that freedom. A legitimate lockout presents the other side of the coin. It does not infringe the freedom of those locked out. Leave to SC denied.

Decision 12543 Full Text of Decision 12543

Refer to: A-0521.86

Decision A-0521.86 Full Text of Decision A-0521.86

There is obviously no merit in the Charter argument. The rule that is found in ss. 31(1) is neither fundamentally unjust nor unreasonable.

Decision 12935 Full Text of Decision 12935

This provision, referring to financing, does not infringe Canadian Bill of Rights. I agree entirely with what was said on this point in CUB-7124.

Decision 10835 Full Text of Decision 10835

Para. 31(2)(b) is not contrary to s.7 of the Charter. I do not agree that it draws arbitrary, irrelevant and irrational distinctions. Not contrary to s.1 of the Bill of Rights. [p._18]

Decision A-0578.82 Full Text of Decision A-0578.82

Financing in question. Issue was whether s. 44 was rendered inoperative by Canadian Bill of Rights. I cannot agree with this. I agree with the view stated in CUB -7124 [pp. 8-9]. Upheld in FC without comment.