| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
The fact of his working an additional 5 weeks after the strike is not relevant [in deciding whether his contract was of fixed duration]. What matters is whether he was completing a subsisting contract or whether he had been rehired under a new contract.[p. 7]
If his contract were of fixed duration and would expire on a certain date regardless of whether work to be performed under it was complete, HURREN could probably be used to say that from then on his unemployment was not due to the work stoppage but to expiry of contract. [p. 6]
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
directly interested |
employment terminates |
|
Summary:
Employee whose contract was expected to terminate during the strike. The retroactive increase does not help us. In either case, this was merely a windfall in consideration of past services, which is not even considered to be earnings under reg. 57(3)(e). [p. 7]
