Summary Search Results...


Decision 76451 Full Text of Decision 76451

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
labour dispute loss of employment by reason of a stoppage
Summary:

The Commission issued a disentitlement to benefits pursuant to subsection 36(1) of the Act, the claimant having lost her employment as a result of a work stoppage attributable to a labour dispute at her place of employment. The claimant is not entitled to receive benefits until the earlier of a. the end of the work stoppage, and b. the day on which the claimant becomes regularly engaged elsewhere in insurable employment. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed by the Umpire.


Decision A0542.07 Full Text of Decision A0542.07

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
labour dispute loss of employment by reason of a stoppage
Summary:

The issue before the BOR was whether the claimants lost their employment with Telus because of a work stoppage attributable to a labour dispute within the meaning of 36(1) of the EIA. The Umpire confirmed the decisions of the BOR in which the claimants were awarded employment insurance benefits. The FCA concluded that the Umpire misconstrued the decision of the BOR. It was clear that the claimants lost their employment due to a work stoppage attributable to a labour dispute.


Decision 56343 Full Text of Decision 56343

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
labour dispute loss of employment by reason of a stoppage
Summary:

Claimant stopped working due to a labour dispute. Facts established that he was a member of the Union representing his bargaining unit. Claimant failed to demonstrate that he fell within the exclusions provided in the Act i.e. that he was not participating in the labour dispute, he was not financing the work stoppage and that he was not directly interested in the result of the labour dispute leading to the work stoppage.


Decision A-1036.92 Full Text of Decision A-1036.92

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
labour dispute loss of employment by reason of a stoppage
Summary:

The Umpire erred when he asked whether claimants lost their job by reason of a labour dispute; they, of course, did. He should have asked whether they lost it by reason of a "stoppage of work" attributable to a labour dispute; they did not. They lost it in anticipation, not because, of a stoppage. The second issue was said to be a factual one: the Umpire found "as a fact" that the loss of employment resulted from the stoppage of work. This is not a factual matter at all; it is a conclusion of law based on certain facts found by the Umpire. There is really no dispute with regard to the facts.

Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
labour dispute rationale
labour dispute conditions required for disentitlement
labour dispute loss of employment prior to stoppage
board of referees legislative authority purpose of ui system
board of referees errors in law misinterpretation of facts

Decision 21236 Full Text of Decision 21236

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
labour dispute loss of employment by reason of a stoppage
Summary:

Refer to: A-1036.92

Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
labour dispute conditions required for disentitlement
labour dispute rationale
board of referees legislative authority purpose of ui system
labour dispute loss of employment prior to stoppage
board of referees errors in law misinterpretation of facts

Decision 21915 Full Text of Decision 21915

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
labour dispute loss of employment by reason of a stoppage
Summary:

The lack of work was the direct result of pressure being exercised on the worksite. Had it not been for this work stoppage, there would have been no lack of work. The reason for the layoff and the work stoppage are linked so closely that the one is the result of the other.


Decision 20955 Full Text of Decision 20955

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
labour dispute loss of employment by reason of a stoppage
Summary:

If it is accepted that the employer indeed cancelled all shifts (of Local 1518), it nevertheless did so as a consequence of the strike by Local 2000. The fact that the employer took the initiative does not change this reality. No question that the loss was due to the dispute.


Decision 16425A Full Text of Decision 16425A

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
labour dispute loss of employment by reason of a stoppage
Summary:

Claimant was 1 of 7 electricians who went on strike. The fact that the employer for reasons best known only to himself chose not to put him to work on another project where there was no strike along with his fellow employees does not alter the cause forhis loss of employment.


Decision 19042 Full Text of Decision 19042

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
labour dispute loss of employment by reason of a stoppage
Summary:

The Board found the employment was not suitable. I accept the submission that suitability or non-suitability is not relevant as to why employment was lost. It should have directed itself to a consideration of why that employment was lost and not to the suitability of it.


Decision 17679 Full Text of Decision 17679

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
labour dispute loss of employment by reason of a stoppage
Summary:

The insured person was sick on the first day of the lock-out. An error in law by the Board. Sick before and after, but he did not miss work because of sickness. He worked until 30-10, day of the lock-out, picketed for one hour and received strike pay until 7-1.

Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
labour dispute loss of employment on leave

Decision 16952 Full Text of Decision 16952

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
labour dispute loss of employment by reason of a stoppage
Summary:

Notice sent to the insured person by the employer on 16-3, informing him that he would be laid off 24 hours later, that is at 5:00 p.m. on 17-3. Lock-out at 3:55 p.m. on 17-3. The Board decided that the layoff was due to the lack of work. A question of facts, in which I am unable to intervene.


Decision 16903 Full Text of Decision 16903

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
labour dispute loss of employment by reason of a stoppage
Summary:

The Board did not err in finding that the workers' lay-offs attributable "to a reduction of business volume caused by Company's inability to provide firm fixed delivery dates to regular customers due to the potential for labour disruption" were attributable to a stoppage of work.


Decision 16653 Full Text of Decision 16653

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
labour dispute loss of employment by reason of a stoppage
Summary:

Claimant says the Board applied the wrong test. It found the loss of employment was as a result of a labour dispute rather than as a result of a stoppage of work due to the dispute. It is clear the loss occurred because of the cessation of the operations due to the dispute.


Decision 15334 Full Text of Decision 15334

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
labour dispute loss of employment by reason of a stoppage
Summary:

Honoured picket line by other workers as of 12-5. Was due for layoff 15-5 for other reasons and he was laid off. Claim filed after layoff. Not a loss of employment due to strike. In the alternative, case allowed under 44(2): not involved in strike at time of filing claim.

Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
labour dispute participation duration

Decision 15259 Full Text of Decision 15259

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
labour dispute loss of employment by reason of a stoppage
Summary:

I cannot conclude that a shortage of work was the real cause of his lay-off when it is evident that he would have worked the following 12-5 but for the strike.

Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
labour dispute participation picket lines

Decision 14507 Full Text of Decision 14507

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
labour dispute loss of employment by reason of a stoppage
Summary:

Member of bargaining unit who crossed the picket line and continued to work for 6 weeks until laid off. Loss due to oversupply and employer coincidentally trying to remedy a product quality problem. Lack of work unconnected to the strike. [p. 11]


Decision 14253 Full Text of Decision 14253

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
labour dispute loss of employment by reason of a stoppage
Summary:

Stopped work due to the strike on 31-5. Returned to work as of 17-7 during the strike at the same premises for the same employer and laid off 8-11 due to shortage of work. Not employed "elsewhere" under 44(1)(b).

Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
labour dispute regularly engaged elsewhere

Decision 14236 Full Text of Decision 14236

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
labour dispute loss of employment by reason of a stoppage
Summary:

Dispute over fish quality control. 32 walked out in the afternoon. Upon their return to work the next day, all employees locked out including 68 workers and claimant who had not walked out.

Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
labour dispute conditions required for disentitlement
labour dispute directly interested own conditions at issue

Decision 12900 Full Text of Decision 12900

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
labour dispute loss of employment by reason of a stoppage
Summary:

It is contended that their loss of employment was not due to the strike but to a management decision to minimize the residual effects of the strike. The causative effect of the strike on the loss cannot be ignored. The decision to lay-off was directly attributable to the strike.

Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
labour dispute directly interested non-bargaining group

Decision A-0942.85 Full Text of Decision A-0942.85

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
labour dispute loss of employment by reason of a stoppage
Summary:

There is no requirement that the loss of employment should be simultaneous with the dispute or the stoppage and ss. 31(2) clearly contemplates that it may be later in time as, for example, where non union employees are laid off some time after the strike has begun.

Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
labour dispute rationale
labour dispute participation duration
labour dispute loss of employment terminates during strike
federal court reasons for judgment not stated interpretation
labour dispute directly interested employment terminates

Decision 11403 Full Text of Decision 11403

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
labour dispute loss of employment by reason of a stoppage
Summary:

Refer to: A-0942.85

Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
labour dispute rationale
labour dispute participation duration
labour dispute loss of employment terminates during strike
federal court reasons for judgment not stated interpretation
labour dispute directly interested employment terminates

Decision 12103 Full Text of Decision 12103

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
labour dispute loss of employment by reason of a stoppage
Summary:

Bulk of lay-offs occurred as strike went on; delivery service employees laid off because of shortage of work; must therefore be concluded that there was loss of employment because of stoppage.


Decision 11481 Full Text of Decision 11481

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
labour dispute loss of employment by reason of a stoppage
Summary:

Illegal strike 23-8 followed by injunction. Employees back to work for one day 4-9 immediately followed by legal strike. Claimant enrolled in course during illegal strike. Loss of employment on 5-9 not due to strike. Technical solution not applicable toothers.

Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
labour dispute loss of employment prior to stoppage

Decision 10227 Full Text of Decision 10227

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
labour dispute loss of employment by reason of a stoppage
Summary:

Electrician whose union went on strike 1-7-83, immediately rehired in another occupation by same employer as non-union salaried employee and worked until 23-4-84 when laid off due to the strike. It seems clear that claimant falls within 31(1); loss of 23-4 is due to the strike.

Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
labour dispute directly interested recall after stoppage
labour dispute directly interested dual status
labour dispute regularly engaged definition

Decision A-0373.82 Full Text of Decision A-0373.82

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]

Other Issue(s): Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
labour dispute participation picket lines
labour dispute loss of employment terminates during strike
board of referees jurisdiction priority of law
Date modified: