CUB 6827
TRANSLATION
IN THE MATTER OF THE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT, 1971
- and -
IN THE MATTER of a claim for benefits by
CLOUTIER, Madeleine et al.
- and -
IN THE MATTER of an appeal to an Umpire by the Commission
from a decision by the Board of Referees given at
Chandler, Quebec, on January 20, 1981
CORRESPONDING FEDERAL COURT DECISION: A-549-81
DECISION
DUBE, J.:
The Commission is appealing on the ground that the Board of Referees erred in law in deciding that between March 31 and May 19, 1980 there was no labour dispute at the fish plant in Rivière au Renard where the claimant and two other appellants, Rodolphe Cassivi and Jules Clavet, were employed. The term "labour dispute" is defined in Section 44(4) of the Unemployment Insurance Act as follows:
(4) In this Act, "labour dispute" means any dispute between employers and employees, or between employees and employees, that is connected with the employment or non-employment, or the terms or conditions of employment, of any persons.
It seems clear to me, after hearing the arguments of counsel for the claimant and the Commission at the hearing of these appeals in Percé, Quebec, on July 8, 1981, and after reading the exhibits in the record, that there was a labour dispute at the plant in question. There was a disagreement of opinion between the employer, Quebec United Fishermen, and the employees, represented by the Syndicat national des employés des usines des pêcheries de Rivière au Renard (national union of plant employees of Rivières au Renard fisheries). The principal issues over which negotiations broke down were clauses relating to pay and the minimum production standards which the employer wanted to bring in and which the union rejected. This kind of dispute is, of course, directly related to employment and to the terms and conditions of employment of employees who are members of the bargaining unit.
During negotiations, the management of Quebec United Fishermen decided not to resume operations at the plant until the collective agreement was renewed. The fishermen who supply the plant were notified to unload their catch elsewhere.
In its decision, the Board of Referees reviewed the situation, noted that negotations were in progress and remarked that a "good atmosphere" prevailed and that negotiations were proceeding "according to schedule". There was no conciliation, no request for conciliation and no vote. The Board also noted that the employers did not ask the employees to report for work and that the employees in their turn never refused to show up.
The following paragraph sums up the view of the Board very well:
The Board of Referees considers that even if there were negotiations, that does not mean that there was a dispute, particularly when negotiations were not broken off, and there was no request for conciliation, no strike vote, no picket line and no form of pressure.
There is ample and well-established precedent, arising from the above definition of "labour dispute", which bears out that such a dispute can exist even if the elements considered acceptable by the Board are not present. There was obviously a disagreement over employment between management and union. During the negotiations surrounding this labour dispute, management decided not to open its doors and the claimants lost their employment as a result. The evidence in the record show also that if the fishermen who normally unload their catch at this plant had not been directed to other ports, there would have been a large enough supply of fish to keep the Rivière au Renard plant in production.
The Commission's appeal is allowed.
J.E. DUBÉ
Umpire
OTTAWA
August 14, 1981