| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
rationale |
|
|
Summary:
S.31 is a statutory expression of the principle that UI benefits should not be perceived as supporting either side in initiating or prolonging labour strife.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
Once it is determined that the loss of employment is due to a labour dispute, benefits are denied even where claimant is an unwilling participant or beneficiary. If 31(2) does not apply, then disentitlement continues until 31(1)(a) or (b) is met.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
hired due to stoppage |
|
Summary:
The appropriate finding here is twofold. First, the impending strike on 2-1 was the reason that this claimant was able to obtain secondary employment on 20-11 and ought not, therefore, to be considered as the cause of losing it.
The Board rejected claimant's argument because he could not prove he had been hired in an attempt by employer to stockpile material in anticipation of strike. The Board erred in placing such onerous burden on him. Its responsibility is to consider all evidence and make a finding.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
while claiming ui |
|
Summary:
Second, since the loss of employment which gave rise to his initial claim in 12-83 was not caught by s.31, it is unjust to apply it in respect to the loss on 2-1-85 of his secondary employment accepted 20-11-84 to destroy his eligibility.
One is not allowed to refuse suitable employment while on benefits. Claimant did what was required of him. He reported for work and then learned of the dispute. To now disqualify him would be plainly unjust, yet a strict reading of 31 appears to permit such conclusion.
