Decision A-0814.91

Summary:

The only firm principle of law in the case of CARON: the end of the labour dispute and the termination of the stoppage of work are two distinct circumstances which may not coincide. One should rely on the facts applicable in this case. The intent of the parties is relevant.

---

Summary:

As per BERNIER, one must determine the date upon which the strikers became in fact unemployed by reason other than the dispute. One may consider, for example, a definite plant closure by the employer or by reason of fire. This is the only approach consistent with the letter and spirit of the law.

---

Summary:

That the employees did not accept their dismissal, that they challenged its validity and took all means to be reinstated does not alter the situation since, in the event that they are successful, their dismissal will be legally invalidated and its effect will retroactively be cancelled. The approach adopted in BERNIER is the only one consistent both with the letter and spirit of the law. The issue then becomes: was the mass layoff of August 8 sufficient to constitute a new prevailing cause for claimants' unemployment? If the employer's decision to terminate the employment contract was not a means to weaken the strikers' determination nor an artificial strategy but a firm, final and irrevocable decision, it would assuredly constitute a new prevailing cause for their unemployment.

---

Summary:

New collective agreement imposed by an arbitrator in accordance with Quebec legislation. Legal termination of stoppage 6-7-88. Of 25 employees, 17 refused to return to work. Their union brought the case before the Courts. Employees dismissed 8-8. Held that the stoppage continued until 8-8.

---