Summary of Issue

Decision 73844 Full Text of Decision 73844

The claimant lost her employment because of a work stoppage arising from a labour dispute. The BoR asked whether the claimant met the conditions under which a claimant may be excused from a disentitlement, which are as follows: the claimant must not have participated in the dispute; the claimant must not have financed the dispute; and the claimant must not have been directly interested in the dispute. It was business as usual for the company, even though the employer and the flight attendants were embroiled in a dispute. By hiring and training replacement employees, the employer took the measures required to ensure that operations would continue. However, this constitutes no more or no less than an unjustified dismissal of a complete sector of the firm. It was determined that the claimants did not lose their employment due to a work stoppage resulting from a labour dispute and that her right to benefits must be restored. Claimant’s appeal is allowed.

Decision 73110 Full Text of Decision 73110

The claimant did not qualify for benefits because she was involved in a labour dispute that she had helped finance by paying union dues manned the picket line and received the $230. per week as strike pay. She was directly interested in the results of the labour dispute pursuant to section 36 of the EI Act. The collective bargaining agreement had expired on August 2008 and the strike and lockout commenced September 2008. A tentative agreement was reached on October 2008 and, following the ratification vote, all members of the bargaining unity returned to work November 2008. The claimant's appeal is dismissed by the Umpire.

Decision S-1063.87

As per FC, a stoppage always results from the fact that one party to a contract does not wish to perform it. If it is the employer, it is called a lockout, otherwise it is a strike. It is the lack of intent which is the essence of a stoppage. SC in substantial agreement.

Decision 13355 Full Text of Decision 13355

Assuming that the cessation of work by union members was brought about by the lock-out rather than the strike, that does not make that termination of work any less attributable to the labour dispute which preceded. It is playing with words to argue otherwise. [p. 3]

Decision 12181 Full Text of Decision 12181

Whether a lockout causes a stoppage of work or a strike causes a stoppage of work we have a labour dispute.

Decision 11611 Full Text of Decision 11611

This was not a strike but a lockout. Either way there was a stoppage of work attributable to a labour dispute.

Decision 11590 Full Text of Decision 11590

The Board referred to a strike and that was an error because the situation here was a lockout. However, whether a lockout or a strike, ss.2(1) is quite clear.

Decision 11456 Full Text of Decision 11456

A work stoppage may be a euphemism for a strike but is not a definition. A work stoppage may be caused by a strike but equally by a lock-out or even by a fire or explosion. A very brief work stoppage is caused by a fire-drill. The kind required is one due to a labour dispute. The kind of stoppage of work amounting to a loss of UI benefits is one due to a labour dispute. A strike is certainly a manifestation of a labour dispute and the strike was, in and of itself, a work stoppage.

Decision 10907 Full Text of Decision 10907

Regardless of whether work stoppage caused by lock-out and not strike, consequences for insured are same. Subs. 44(4) defines "labour dispute" as any dispute between employers and employees connected with employment.