Summary of Issue: Rule Of 85%

Decision A-0834.96 Full Text of Decision A-0834.96

Claimant took issue with the application of Reg. 49(1), claiming that the date the protocol was signed (12-03-92) should be the determining factor for the stoppage of work referred to in ss. 31(1) of the Act, and not the application of an arbitrary percentage. Umpire applied the principle set out in Oakes-Pépin et al (A-38.96), which confirmed that Reg. 49(1) is still valid. FCA upheld the Umpire’s decision.

Decision 22268 Full Text of Decision 22268

The Board concluded that the stoppage of work ended at the time the new collective agreement was ratified. It made an error in law in that it did not consider the effect of reg._49. It is unnecessary to look to finding a date when the agreement was ratified. That is no longer the determining factor.

Decision 22216 Full Text of Decision 22216

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.

Decision 21211 Full Text of Decision 21211

According to claimant, more than 100,000 workers are involved in the 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.

Decision A-0038.96 Full Text of Decision A-0038.96

Collective agreement and return to work protocol signed on 21-12-92. However the workforce was only 85% of what it had been, and a 100% resumption of production was achieved only on 11-01-93. The validity of s. 53(1) of the Regulations was challenged. The FCA found that the moments when work and production resume are part of the circumstances for termination of a work stoppage, and that it is up to the Commission to make an assessment of the situation on the basis of s. 44(e) of the Act.** The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the claimant’s application for leave to appeal before it.

Decision 23516A Full Text of Decision 23516A

It is deemed that it is not sufficient for the Board to conclude that Reg. 49(2)(b) can lead to an application on the basis of economic change; the 85% rule must be examined taking into account the normal readjusted rates in accordance with new circumstances. Error in law.

Decision 25239 Full Text of Decision 25239

I have not been satisfied that the build-up of inventory prior to a strike or lockout, which can delay the resumption of employment beyond 85%, is an "event" which creates an exception under s. 49.