Summary of Issue

Decision 65854 Full Text of Decision 65854

Claimant was a casual on-call employee member of the union. He argued that his loss of employment was due to the fact that he was not recalled to work rather than prevented from working due to the strike. Claimant fell within the provisions of Regulation 36(1) as he was scheduled to work and would have worked had it not been for the strike.

Decision A-0150.00 Full Text of Decision A-0150.00

Claimant started working 26-08-98 as a casual employee and on 28-08, the employer declared a lockout. Claimant declared disentitled, but BOR allowed the claimant's appeal, finding that the claimant had been hired in anticipation of the labour dispute. The Commission subsequently appealed to the Umpire and to the FCA, but was unsuccessful. No legal analysis by the Court and no principle of law established.

Decision 47370 Full Text of Decision 47370

See summary indexed under FCA A-0150.00

Decision A-0690.96 Full Text of Decision A-0690.96

Claimant was not on a lay off when he left his job on 27-01-94. Like all unionzed and casual longshoreman claimant's work assignments are dispatched daily dependant on work. The pattern of employment was not sporadic. While he did not have an assignment the next day, it was reasonable to assume that the claimant had employment to which he would have been recalled as usual but for the strike. Many cases distinguished. ** Claimant had much more than an expectation of being recalled. He had a near certainty pattern that he would have an assignment the next day. The claimant had not terminated his employment relationship nor had he broken his ties with his employer. At all relevant times the claimatn remained in the workforce comprising the union, non union, casual and scheduled longshoreman. Many cases distinguished.

Decision 32940 Full Text of Decision 32940

Long term occasional teacher lost employment due to labour dispute on 8-6-93 before end of contract (25-6-93). Cannot find relief under 31(1). References made to FCA in Imbeault(A-181-83), Hurren(A-942-85), White(A-1036-92) and Hinds(A-139-88). Claimantmay have been concerned with strike's outcome.

Decision 21570 Full Text of Decision 21570

Lockout at midnight on 1-6-88; the insured was to work on 1-6 but was not called back because of the lockout; not member of the union. Evidence clearly shows he lost his work because of a work stoppage. Had it not been for the lockout, he would have been called to work.

Decision A-0692.90 Full Text of Decision A-0692.90

Worked irregularly, free to decline any call back offer. He had no recall rights on last day worked 14-10 and did not know when he would be recalled. A lockout occurred 15-10. Was not employed at that time. He only had the hope of future employment.

Decision 18404 Full Text of Decision 18404

Refer to: A-0692.90

Decision 18825 Full Text of Decision 18825

Seasonal worker on call. He says he had a call back to work on a "will call" basis in 4-88 and that he had worked 3 weeks on that basis until the strike occurred on 9-5. CUB 13650, an identical factual situation, was resolved in favour of claimant. I endorse that reasoning.

Decision 16604 Full Text of Decision 16604

To maintain casual workers' entitlement on the chance that the day a dispute commences was a day of layoff rather than a day of work is unreasonable. They have employment to lose even if not working on the day the dispute commences. CUB 7465 and GIONESTdistinguished.

Decision 16573 Full Text of Decision 16573

According to company, all casuals would have been working the week of 20 to 26-7 but for the strike. Claimant's last day of work is 22-7. There would have been work for the rest of the week at least. Nothing perverse in Board's decision.

Decision 15112 Full Text of Decision 15112

The file indicates that claimant, a casual worker, would have been called back to work for the week following commencement of the strike and therefore must be said to have lost his employment as a result of it.

Decision 15110 Full Text of Decision 15110

Work stoppage 6-8. Replacing someone sick. Did not know how long. Called on a day-to-day basis. Being on call is irrelevant since it was the stoppage which caused him to lose employment. Scheduled to work 6 to 9-8. Union member eligible for strike pay.

Decision 14784 Full Text of Decision 14784

Surplus employee who received benefits at the time of the stoppage. According to precedent, the fact of working part-time or irregularly does not mean the insured cannot be ineligible. She would have been called back had it not been for the labour dispute.

Decision 14184 Full Text of Decision 14184

Longshoreman who worked fairly regularly in January and February, about 28 shifts. Was to work 3 and 4-3 but not 5, 6 and 7. In evidence that he worked the working day preceding the lock-out on 3-3.

Decision 14185 Full Text of Decision 14185

Nature of duties of longshoremen demands that they work only on call. They in fact worked the preceding Friday and would have worked on Monday to complete the offloading [pp. 7-8]. GIONEST considered. CIB-9490A applied.

Decision 13650 Full Text of Decision 13650

He worked for 2 companies on a casual basis strictly on a day to day basis. What he lost is not employment but the possibility of being offered employment. There was no employment which extended beyond the completion of the immediate shift. One cannot lose what one does not have.

Decision 13072 Full Text of Decision 13072

Unemployed 3 months and recalled in 3-85; works some 3 weeks until 1-6 including 20 hours in May. Was employed on 31-5, the day preceding the strike and was expected to work from 2 to 8-6. The strike was the cause of his loss. Not a layoff.

Decision A-1415.84 Full Text of Decision A-1415.84

Consistently held in case law that no distinction should be made between full-time employment and part-time employment and that situation of casual workers is comparable to that of temporary workers. Upheld in FC without comment.

Decision 09525 Full Text of Decision 09525

Insured was at work on 13-2 and returned to see whether there was work for him the next day, when a lock-out closed the plant doors. When the loss of employment is attributable to the dispute, it is unimportant whether employment is irregular, temporary or part-time.