| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
participation |
picket lines |
|
Summary:
Before deciding whether the existence of an essential services order (ESO) that prevented the claimant from working proves that the claimant was not participating in a labour dispute, it seems relevant to consider the conduct of the claimant and her bargaining agent in the period preceding the issue of the ESO. In the present case, evidence showed the interest that Local 15 and its members had in Local 1004's labour dispute with the common employer, the coordinated bargaining strategies of and the ongoing communications between the two Locals and the opportunity that the applicant had to disassociate herself prior to the City's application for an ESO.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
directly interested |
non-bargaining group |
|
Summary:
There was evidence indicating that Local 15 might well have expected to receive whatever benefits were negociated by Local 1004. Not only had the two Locals coordinated their bargaining, but Local 15 decided to postpone its ratification vote pending Local 1004's vote on its tentative agreement, no doubt in the expectation that, if Local 1004 accepted the City's improved offer, its members would be offered similar terms. Locals had considered their interests and their issues with the employer sufficiently similar that they had wanted to bargain together.
