| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
rationale |
|
|
Summary:
The Court quoted the comments of an author who stated: "A fund to which employers had contributed should not have been used against them. Government neutrality must be preserved. This is the purpose." [p. 9]
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
conditions required for disentitlement |
|
|
Summary:
Cites following comments by an author without comment: "CEIC must establish (1) that there is a dispute, (2) by reason of a stoppage of work (3) and that the loss of employment resulted therefrom. Accordingly, reference is then made to 31(1)(a) and (b) and 31(2)." [p. 9]
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
participation |
picket lines |
|
Summary:
I concur with the following: "Not necessary to expose one's self to danger. Members of the same group must make a real effort to attend at work. However, if they cannot do so entirely safely because of violence or threats, they are not participants." [p. 14]
I concur with the following: "The purpose of the Act is to compensate those who have really tried to attend at work, see ss. 27 and 28. In the context of labour disputes, disentitlement applies also to everyone who supports the participants." [p. 13]
