| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
directly interested |
temporary, probationary |
|
Summary:
The evidence has established that the claimant suffered a work stoppage due to a labour dispute. Had it not been for that dispute, he would have continued to work, for some time at least, and when it ended he resumed his job. There is no question that the conditions of disentitlement stipulated in section 36(1) of the Act applied to the claimant. Furthermore, the claimant did not satisfy the exceptions to disentitlement provided for in section 36(4) of the Act. Although he was on probation, he participated in the financing of the strike through the union dues he had to pay and he was directly interested in the dispute since he benefited from the new collective agreement once the dispute was settled. See simlar decision, CUB 68099.
