CUB 9598

CUB 9598

Claimant: Pauline Simard

Appellant: Claimant

*DECISION

J. PINARD, UMPIRE:

At issue is the interpretation of the words "has lost his employment" in section 44(1) of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971:

Sec 44. (1 ) A claimant who has lost his employment by reason of a stoppage of work attributable to a labour dispute at the factory, workshop or other premises at which he was employed is not entitled to receive benefit until

(a) the termination of the stoppage of work

(b) he becomes bona fide employed elsewhere in the occupation that he usually follows, or

(c) he has become regularly engaged in some other occupation, whichever event first occurs.

In this case, the claimant was a teacher at the Centre St-Michel who was receiving an hourly rate of pay. The hours of teaching that she was to have provided during the three weeks of the teachers’ general strike in Quebec (from January 26, 1983 to February 18, 1983) were postponed until the following June so that she would be teaching the same number of hours as had been planned at the beginning of the school year in September 1982.

The claimant admitted that these hours of teaching were postponed because of a stoppage of work attributable to a labour dispute within the meaning of section 44(1) above; however, she denied having "lost" her employment.

In interpretation of the provisions of section 44 of the Act, there has been constant jurisprudence to the effect that no distinction needs to be made between full-time and part-time work, and that the situation that casual workers are in, in terms of the moment of stoppage of work, is comparable to that of temporary workers. These principles were applied to supply teachers (CUB-4738 and 6468) and teachers receiving an hourly rate of pay (CUB-6881 and 7468).

*Appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal by the Claimant.

Furthermore, I think that the words "has lost his employment" in subsection (1) of section 4 above must be interpreted within the context of all of subsection (1) and particularly paragraph (a) which means that for unemployment insurance purposes, the employment ceases to be lost because of a dispute at the end of the work stoppage.

In this context, the words "has lost his employment " can mean the termination of employment, resulting from a stoppage of work attributable to a labour dispute.

Therefore, I came to the conclueion that the word "lost" in subsection (1) of section 44 of the Act should not be taken in isolation, but rather in the overall context of all of subsection (1) which goes on to say "by reason of a stoppage of work attributable to a labour dispute", and which re-establishes the entitlement to receive benefit at the "termination of the stoppage of work".

Consequently, I must uphold the unanimous decision of the Board of Referees, which confirmed the Commission’s decision in declaring the claimant disentitled to receive benefit from January 27, 1983 until the end of the stoppage of work n February 18, 1983 because she had lost her employment because of a stoppage of work attributable to a labour dispute within the meaning of section 44(1) of the Act.

The appeal is therefore dismissed.

________________________

Umpire

(October 19, 1984)