| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
conditions required for disentitlement |
|
|
Summary:
For a claimant to be disentitled, claimant must have lost employment, loss of employment must have been brought about by work stoppage, which was caused by labour dispute occurring at claimant's place of work. [p. 5]
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
rationale |
|
|
Summary:
S. 31 essentially intended to ensure there is no bias in Act in terms of labour relations and purpose is to prevent benefits being used indirectly to finance dispute, which would disturb that neutrality. [p. 7]
| 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]
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
Employer laid off some employees on 1-11 in anticipation of strike on 3-11; however, bulk of lay-offs occurred when strike had broken out; must therefore conclude loss of emplyment was because of stoppage. [p. 12]
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
directly interested |
own conditions at issue |
|
Summary:
A person is directly interested if he or she will benefit directly from the dispute in terms of advantages in bargaining; benefit of having strike end to get job back means indirect interest; legislation refers to direct interest. [pp. 14-15]
| 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]
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
directly interested |
recall after stoppage |
|
Summary:
A person is directly interested if he or she will benefit directly from the dispute in terms of advantages in bargaining; benefit of having strike end to get job back equals indirect interest; legislation refers to direct interest. [pp. 14-15]
