| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
participation |
picket lines |
|
Summary:
CUB 4222 quoted with approval: The test as to the personal motivation required to overcome the presumption is whether a bona fide worker, with a sincere desire to continue working, would not have attempted to cross the picket lines because he, with reasonable cause, truly feared actual violence.
CUB 4222 summarized what has been held in a long line of Umpire's decisions not questioned in FC or SC: failure to cross a picket line gives rise to a presumption of solidarity which may be rebutted by evidence to the contrary. [p.7]
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
by reason of a stoppage |
|
Summary:
It was argued that claimant, a union member of Hamilton local, would have lost his travel card if he crossed the picket line honoured by the London local. The Board found that he lost his employment due to the stoppage. Undisputable that there is evidence to support this. [p.7]
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
Having found that claimant lost his employment due to a stoppage of work, he was not entitled to receive UI until any of the events in 44(1)(a), (b) and (c) occurred unless he proved both 44(2)(a) and (b). [p. 7]
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
Summary:
Conclusion reached with some reluctance. But this Court, the Umpire, the Board and the Commission must apply the law as it appears that Parliament enacted it, irrespective of the sympathy that the plight of this claimant engenders. [p. 10-11]
