Decision A-0209.04
Full Text of Decision A-0209.04
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
The Commission rejected the claimant's application for benefits, even though her contract of employment had terminated, because the work stoppage due to the strike was not over. The Court ruled that it is the reason the employment was lost that determines eligibility. The Court found that the employment was lost when the strike started and not when the claimant's replacement contract ended.
Decision 59992
Full Text of Decision 59992
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0209.04
Decision 55819
Full Text of Decision 55819
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
Claimant became unemployed on March 13, 2002 as a result of a strike. Claimant's contract was due to expire on March 28, 2002. Strike ended May 6, 2002 at which time the claimant resumed his work for his employer. The fact that the claimant might have lost his employment during the period of the strike is not relevant in that it does not affect the clear application of SS. 36(1) of the Act.
Decision 32940
Full Text of Decision 32940
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
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.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
casual employees |
|
Decision 26330
Full Text of Decision 26330
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
Teacher on strike from 8-5-91, contract expiring end of 6-91. No picket line during summer. Strike terminated 2-9-91. A few teachers resigned, so claimant got a new contract from 12-9-91. HURREN and CUB 18076 quoted. Did not have but an indirect interest following expiration of contract.
While claimant did not retire, as was the case in HURREN, and thus sever his relationship with his employer, I am satisfied that the expiration of his contract (in teaching) at the end of 6-91 effectively produced the same result. No obligation on the part of the School Board to rehire him in 9-91.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
directly interested |
employment terminates |
|
Decision 24335
Full Text of Decision 24335
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
It is true that the layoffs were not related to the stoppage of work, as the Board concluded. However, as the jurisprudence makes clear, once a stoppage of work commences as a result of a labour dispute, ss. 31(1) imposes a disentitlement until one of the conditions there set out has occurred.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
business discontinued |
|
Decision A-0814.91
Full Text of Decision A-0814.91
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
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.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
settlement of dispute |
|
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
business discontinued |
|
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
illegal |
|
Decision 20138
Full Text of Decision 20138
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0814.91
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
settlement of dispute |
|
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
business discontinued |
|
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
illegal |
|
Decision 22216
Full Text of Decision 22216
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
53 out of 104 employees recalled to work on 24-4-91 (51%). Claimant and 10 others were sent a letter laying them off indefinitely due to business conditions and shortage of work. Allowed by Board. Held that the stoppage did not terminate until 29-4-91 when 80% of employees were recalled.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
rule of 85% |
|
Decision A-0270.91
Full Text of Decision A-0270.91
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
Should the disentitlement be discontinued when the employer subsequently shut down the project and laid them off? Counsel for claimant invited us to reverse this Court's finding in IMBEAULT. Despite the able arguments of counsel, we are unable to identify any basis for doing so.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
annual shutdown |
|
| labour dispute |
participation |
picket lines |
|
Decision 19037
Full Text of Decision 19037
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0270.91
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
annual shutdown |
|
| labour dispute |
participation |
picket lines |
|
Decision 21353
Full Text of Decision 21353
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
Dismissed during stoppage: disobeyed injunction and assaulted guard. Employer not interested in re-hiring but possibility of negotiations during back-to-work protocol. CUB-14636 applies; authentic and non-definitive breach; remains party to the conflict.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
regularly engaged |
definition |
|
| labour dispute |
directly interested |
employment terminates |
|
Decision 19520
Full Text of Decision 19520
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
Claimant says that he should not have been penalized for accepting temporary work. The provisions of ss.31(1) apply to employment. They do not distinguish between temporary or permanent employment.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
regularly engaged |
definition |
|
Decision 19062
Full Text of Decision 19062
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
I would agree with CUB 16581 that it must be clear he has ended his employer relationship and would not return. Further, it is he who bears the burden of proving the date his employment has terminated irrespective of the outcome of the dispute and thus has no interest. [p._10]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
directly interested |
temporary, probationary |
|
Decision 18704
Full Text of Decision 18704
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
Seasonal worker for the City whose employment ends every year at around 1-4. On strike since 27-1; the Board grants the appeal as from 1-4. IMBEAULT cited by the Umpire; it does not matter whether the claimant argued that he normally stopped on 1-4.
Decision 18325
Full Text of Decision 18325
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
Strike on 24-6; insured person dismissed on 23-8 following an altercation with a manager on the picket line. The issue is whether in this case there was a definitive severance of the employer-employee relationship. In fact rehired following a grievance. Therefore, no definitive severance.
Decision 18076
Full Text of Decision 18076
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
Hired for 1 year; the contract ended on 14-8; there was a work stoppage on 27-6. Many arguments submitted by CEIC maintaining that disentitlement should not cease before the end of the contract. HURREN applied. No longer a member of the union.
Decision 18077
Full Text of Decision 18077
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
Contract ended 10-9; work stoppage 25-6. The insured person must really have left his job and the union, and not be directly involved in the conflict. See HURREN. The insured person in this case was still a member of the union; rehired after the stoppage.
Decision 17900
Full Text of Decision 17900
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
One-year work contract ending during the work stoppage. Favorable decision granted by the Board which stated that the insured satisfied 44(2) immediately. Decision reversed: the insured remained subject to recall and had in fact benefited from a salary increase upon return. Directly interested.
Decision 17712
Full Text of Decision 17712
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
The situation of this insured person is identical to that of IMBEAULT where it was decided that an insured person is subject to disentitlement if he looses his job because of a work stoppage, even if it is recognized that he would, in any event, have lost it a few days later.
Decision 17650
Full Text of Decision 17650
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
According to claimant and her counsel, employment in any case was to end before the holiday period and the Board did not take certain judgments on that point into account. I cannot be in favor of that reasoning if d'IMBEAULT and CUB-13350 are taken into account.
Decision 14613
Full Text of Decision 14613
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0139.88
Decision A-0139.88
Full Text of Decision A-0139.88
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
Hired for a specific period from 11-11-85 to early 4-86. Later advised that layoff had been postponed to 25-4-86. Premises struck 4-4-86. Case allowed by Board from 25-4-86 and overturned by Umpire. The Court says this case falls squarely within IMBEAULT. HURREN does not apply.
Decision 15562
Full Text of Decision 15562
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
Claimant dismissed due to misconduct during lockout. HURREN examined. One single most important fact is claimant's desire to be reinstated. Grievance filed against dismissal. It cannot be said that claimant does not retain any direct interest under 31(2).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
directly interested |
employment terminates |
|
| labour dispute |
regularly engaged |
definition |
|
Decision 15500
Full Text of Decision 15500
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
Probationary cook on trawler transferred to another port during the strike. He could not follow transfer due to lack of seniority. IMBEAULT referred to. As he lost his job due to the dispute, it does not matter he might also have subsequently lost it because trawler transferred.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
shortly after commencing |
|
Decision 14021
Full Text of Decision 14021
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0741.87
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
directly interested |
employment terminates |
|
| labour dispute |
directly interested |
non-bargaining group |
|
Decision A-0741.87
Full Text of Decision A-0741.87
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
Substitute teacher on contract from 4-2 to 28-6. Disentitlement should have terminated 28-6, the day claimant's contract was due to expire. From that time on, no interest and no affiliation with those participating. HURREN referred to. Upheld by FC.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
directly interested |
employment terminates |
|
| labour dispute |
directly interested |
non-bargaining group |
|
Decision 14636
Full Text of Decision 14636
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
Claimant locked out 1-1 and then terminated 6-2 due to actions on picket line. Grievance filed and rejected. Union intends to negotiate dismissal prior to resuming activities. HURREN distinguished. Continues to be directly interested.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
directly interested |
employment terminates |
|
Decision 14635
Full Text of Decision 14635
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
Notice of termination sent to claimant at beginning of the strike to protect employer against possible future claims. The Board found that claimant kept picketing and there was no complete and final severance. Sufficient evidence to support this finding.
Decision 14430
Full Text of Decision 14430
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
Employment was to terminate on 10-4 and work stoppage occurred on 7-4. Several judgments considered, including IMBEAULT. Can only be terminated by 31(1)(a) and (b). Subs. 31(2) does not apply here.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
intent and object |
|
Decision 14014
Full Text of Decision 14014
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
Strike 6-12-84. Resigned 2-6-85. As per HURREN, an employee who voluntarily severs his relationship with his employer after the commencement of the strike can bring himself within 31(2). He is no longer participating or interested in the strike.
Decision 13956
Full Text of Decision 13956
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
Hired 13-3 to be laid off 25-4. Strike on 4-4. HURREN recognized that a claimant who severs his ties with his employment can come under 31(2). Same result should follow here from 25-4, the labour dispute having no bearing on claimant's employment situation.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
shortly after commencing |
|
Decision 13738
Full Text of Decision 13738
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
The fact of his working an additional 5 weeks after the strike is not relevant [in deciding whether his contract was of fixed duration]. What matters is whether he was completing a subsisting contract or whether he had been rehired under a new contract.[p. 7]
If his contract were of fixed duration and would expire on a certain date regardless of whether work to be performed under it was complete, HURREN could probably be used to say that from then on his unemployment was not due to the work stoppage but to expiry of contract. [p. 6]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
directly interested |
employment terminates |
|
Decision 13739
Full Text of Decision 13739
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
The claimant's contract was due to expire 31-10. As of that date he had no connection with the employer, the union or the outcome of the strike.
Decision 13350
Full Text of Decision 13350
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
Recalled to work for a few weeks, general strike after 3 days. Numerous decisions have held that even casual employees or those with irregular, temporary or part-time employment may be affected by application of s. 31. Cited IMBEAULT.
Decision 13039
Full Text of Decision 13039
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
Striker who left permanently 2 weeks after and quit the union; Hurren considered; may therefore receive benefit of 31(2).
Decision 12864
Full Text of Decision 12864
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
Claimant referred to the course by the Commission. The Board found that he resigned from union and employer to attend college effective during the strike, that he was not participating since then and did not belong to grade or class. This case falls squarely within HURREN.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
regularly engaged |
courses of study |
|
Decision 11403
Full Text of Decision 11403
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0942.85
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
rationale |
|
|
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
by reason of a stoppage |
|
| labour dispute |
participation |
duration |
|
| federal court |
reasons for judgment not stated |
interpretation |
|
| labour dispute |
directly interested |
employment terminates |
|
Decision A-0942.85
Full Text of Decision A-0942.85
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
An employee who retires (voluntarily or compulsorily) severs his relationship with his employer. He no longer has anything to win or lose. He has become a free agent. The source of his loss of employment, a critical factor under 31(1), is no longer relevant.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
rationale |
|
|
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
by reason of a stoppage |
|
| labour dispute |
participation |
duration |
|
| federal court |
reasons for judgment not stated |
interpretation |
|
| labour dispute |
directly interested |
employment terminates |
|
Decision 11839
Full Text of Decision 11839
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
Work stoppage on 7-5; insured replacing someone who was to return on 4-6; according to him, unemployment not attributable to stoppage after that date. Argument wrong in law and cannot be accepted; see IMBEAULT.
Decision 11808
Full Text of Decision 11808
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
Fact that submitted formal resignation on 28-9-84, before end of work stoppage, not one of situations provided for in 44(1)(a), (b) and (c) which provide for termination of disentitlement. See IMBEAULT.
Decision 11757
Full Text of Decision 11757
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
Work stoppage on 13-6-84; formally submitted resignation on 7-1-85, before end of stoppage; subsequently made claim; according to board: 44(2) written in present tense and issue must therefore must be determined as at time of claim. Error of law: see IMBEAULT.
Decision 11749
Full Text of Decision 11749
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
Work stoppage on 15-1-85. She argued that in any event her employment was to terminate on 10-5-85, date when labour dispute ceased to be real cause of unemployment. Argument rejected. Cited IMBEAULT and PERRAULT.
Decision 11475
Full Text of Decision 11475
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
Once it is determined that the loss of employment is due to a labour dispute, benefits are denied even where claimant is an unwilling participant or beneficiary. If 31(2) does not apply, then disentitlement continues until 31(1)(a) or (b) is met.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
rationale |
|
|
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
hired due to stoppage |
|
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
while claiming ui |
|
Decision A-1784.83
Full Text of Decision A-1784.83
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
Claimant resigned during the strike. He was not at the time of the dispute able to bring himself within 44(2). Therefore he is caught by s.44 until he can fulfill 44(1)(a), (b) or (c). The Board erred in terminating under 44(2). Upheld by FC without comment.
Decision A-0181.83
Full Text of Decision A-0181.83
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
The question that must be asked is this: "How did the insured lose his employment at the beginning of his period of unemployment?", not "Why is he unemployed today?" Leave to appeal to SC denied.
The past tense of "lose" means we must look at the time the insured became unemployed. It is the cause of the loss at that precise moment, not of his subsequent unemployment, that counts. Only 44(1)(a), (b) and (c) cause disentitllement to cease. Leave to appeal to SC denied.
Former principle that disentitlement terminated when dispute ceased to be real cause of unemployment is inconsistent with wording of Act. Disentitlement can terminate only under 44(1)(a), (b) and (c). Leave to appeal to SC denied.
Disentitlement continues until one of conditions in 44(1)(a), (b) or (c) met, even if, were it not for the dispute, the insured would subsequently and in any event have lost his employment for another reason. Leave to appeal to SC denied.
See entries under IMBEAULT
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
stoppage of work |
annual shutdown |
|
Decision A-0373.82
Full Text of Decision A-0373.82
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
terminates during strike |
|
Summary:
Having found that claimant lost his employment due to a stoppage of work, he was not entitled to receive UI until any of the events in 44(1)(a), (b) and (c) occurred unless he proved both 44(2)(a) and (b). [p. 7]
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
participation |
picket lines |
|
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
by reason of a stoppage |
|
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
priority of law |
|
