Summary of Issue

Decision A-0041.98 Full Text of Decision A-0041.98

The employer had hired replacement workers in anticipation of a lock-out, and the Umpire found that the measures taken to ensure continuity of operations were not exceptional or temporary. The Umpire ruled that what was involved was simply wrongful dismissal, and that there had thus been no work stoppage. This decision was upheld by the FCA, which acknowledged that a stoppage of work that does not exist cannot come to an end.**NOTE: The Commission agrees that the measures taken by the employer are permanent in nature, and believes that its policy on the matter is not threatened.

Decision A-0043.98 Full Text of Decision A-0043.98

Case identical to S. Kump (A-0041.98). See summary indexed.

Decision A-0042.98 Full Text of Decision A-0042.98

Case identical to S. Kump et al (A-0041.98). See summary indexed.

Decision A-0040.98 Full Text of Decision A-0040.98

Case identical to S. Kump et al (A-0041.98). See summary indexed.

Decision A-0039.98 Full Text of Decision A-0039.98

Case identical to S. Kump et al (A-0041.98). See summary indexed.

Decision 39839 Full Text of Decision 39839

Umpire concluded that, based on the evidence, there had not been a stoppage of work within the meaning of section 31 of the Act. The company’s operations continued normally in spite of the dispute between the employer and the flight attendants. The employer hired and trained replacement staff and took the necessary measures to ensure the continuity of operations. This amounted to a wrongful dismissal of an entire sector of the company. Therefore the claimants did not lose their jobs because of a stoppage of work attributable to a dispute. **NOTE:Decision appealed before the FCA. Commission believes that Umpire erred in fact and in law in determining that the employees received strike pay and were directly interested in the dispute.

Decision 39842 Full Text of Decision 39842

See summary indexed under FCA A-0041.98

Decision 39841 Full Text of Decision 39841

See summary indexed under FCA A-0041.98

Decision 39840 Full Text of Decision 39840

See summary indexed under FCA A-0041.98

Decision 39843 Full Text of Decision 39843

See summary indexed under FCA A-0041.98

Decision A-0647.95 Full Text of Decision A-0647.95

Held by FCA that Umpire confused the concept of the end of a strike with that of the termination of a stoppage of work. The Act refers to a "stoppage of work" and not to the end of a strike. The Regulations also provide the definition which is to be considered with regard to the termination of a stoppage of work.**Held also that the Umpire erred in reversing without justification the BOR finding of fact that the measures taken by the employer to replace the striking employees had taken on a permanent character and that it was unlikely the labour dispute would ever be settled. Evidence on the record amply supports the BOR conclusion.

Decision 21211 Full Text of Decision 21211

According to claimant, more than 100,000 workers are involved in Quebec construction industry and only 800 with this employer, i.e. less than 1%. Thus the stoppage of work does not approach the 85% mentioned in the Act. Ss. 31(1) refers to the "premises" at which the claimant was employed. Given that the construction decree does not allow a strike or lockout, if one party uses pressure tactics to obtain what it wants, the result may be a stoppage of work attributable to a labour dispute. This clearly happened in the case at bar.

Decision 15424 Full Text of Decision 15424

In view of the insured person there was no stoppage, as the boats were diverted to other ports. Stoppage means stoppage of normal activity in the business where the insured person is employed, in this case the port of Quebec City. The question is: was there a work stoppage in Quebec city, not whether the work continued elsewhere. First it must be recognized that it is up to CEIC to prove all parts of section 31(1), including the work stoppage.

Decision 14332 Full Text of Decision 14332

It must be noted that the jurisprudence has clearly established that the burden of proof is on the Commission to show that there is a stoppage of work. [p. 3]

Decision 13664 Full Text of Decision 13664

Not sufficient to say that loss of employment was attributable to the dispute; it must be by reason of a work stoppage attributable to the dispute. [p. 11] The lay-off of 25% of the work force, or 150 employees, because of a shortage of work [p. 3] does not mean a work stoppage. [p. 15]

Decision 13307 Full Text of Decision 13307

In order to constitute a work stoppage, there must be an appreciable decrease in output. [p. 4]

Decision 12771 Full Text of Decision 12771

No need for a total stoppage. It is sufficient that the main activities are unable to be maintained. That a few sightseeing tours were still on going and the cafeteria open does not alter the fact of a stoppage.

Decision A-0340.79 Full Text of Decision A-0340.79

Where all employees in bargaining unit cease working, there may or may not be a work stoppage. However, fact that cessation of work resulted in reduction of entire business's production by less than 15% is not conclusive.