Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
rule of 85% |
exceptions |
Summary:
Collective agreement and return to work protocol signed on 21-12-92. However the workforce was only 85% of what it had been, and a 100% resumption of production was achieved only on 11-01-93. The validity of s. 53(1) of the Regulations was challenged. The FCA found that the moments when work and production resume are part of the circumstances for termination of a work stoppage, and that it is up to the Commission to make an assessment of the situation on the basis of s. 44(e) of the Act.** The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the claimant’s application for leave to appeal before it.
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
labour dispute |
labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
settlement of dispute |
Summary:
Collective agreement and return to work protocol signed on 21-12-92. However the workforce was only 85% of what it had been, and a 100% resumption of production was achieved only on 11-01-93. The validity of s. 53(1) of the Regulations was challenged. The FCA found that the moments when work and production resume are part of the circumstances for termination of a work stoppage, and that it is up to the Commission to make an assessment of the situation on the basis of s. 44(e) of the Act.** The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the claimant’s application for leave to appeal before it.
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
labour dispute |
labour dispute |
labour dispute |
charter |
Summary:
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.