| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
attributable to dispute |
|
Summary:
Umpire reproached BOR for having mistakenly dissociated the stoppage of work for construction employees in Quebec from the dispute between employers and employees that had been going on for several months regarding the terms of their future agreement. He did not accept the fact that the members of the BOR could come to such a conclusion based on the argument that the Minister’s intervention in the form of Bill 142 exacerbated the situation. Umpire saw the Minister’s intervention as one incident in the conflict, a way to resolve the impasse, a step in finding a solution to the employer-employee dispute. He did not agree that, because the Bill triggered the stoppage of work, it could be viewed as independent of the labour dispute. FCA upheld the Umpire’s decision and found that Umpire did not in any way deviate from the concept of dispute referred to in the Act.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
directly interested |
construction trade decree |
|
Summary:
Umpire reproached BOR for having mistakenly dissociated the stoppage of work for construction employees in Quebec from the dispute between employers and employees that had been going on for several months regarding the terms of their future agreement. He did not accept the fact that the members of the BOR could come to such a conclusion based on the argument that the Minister’s intervention in the form of Bill 142 exacerbated the situation. Umpire saw the Minister’s intervention as one incident in the conflict, a way to resolve the impasse, a step in finding a solution to the employer-employee dispute. He did not agree that, because the Bill triggered the stoppage of work, it could be viewed as independent of the labour dispute. FCA upheld the Umpire’s decision and found that Umpire did not in any way deviate from the concept of dispute referred to in the Act.
