British Columbia Maritime Employers Assn. v. Wellicome
A-690-96
Desjardins J.A.
11/12/97
17 pp.
Application for judicial review of decision of umpire acting under Unemployment Insurance Act, claimant not disentitled from unemployment benefits under Act, s. 31(1) when other longshoremen on strike-Whether case distinguishable from decision in White v. Canada, [1994] 2 F.C. 233 (C.A.)-Applicant party to collective agreement with International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union representing longshore workers employed by applicant's members-Claimant longshoreman but not member of regularly scheduled crew-Not union member-Benefitted from terms of settlement later signed between union and employers' association, received retroactive pay under new agreement-Work carried out under collective agreement loading, unloading of vessels, related functions-Claimant applied for benefits on July 8, 1993, effective July 4, 1993, but continued to work until January 27, 1994-At no time, on or before January 28, 1994, did applicant advise claimant he had been laid off, employment terminated-Board of referees concluding reason for claimant's loss of employment directly connected to stoppage of work attributable to labour dispute-Whether claimant lost employment, unable to resume previous employment due to stoppage of work when coming to waterfront on January 28, 1994-Claimant had not been object of layoff when left employment on evening of January 27, 1994-Had no definite recall in hand but not out of work on January 28, 1994-No shortage of work for claimant-Claimant had neither terminated employment relationship, nor broken ties with employer-Received retroactive pay when new agreement signed-Remained in workforce comprising union, nonunion, casual and scheduled longshoremen-Application allowed-Unemployment Insurance Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. U1, s. 31(1) (as am. by S.C. 1990, c. 40, s. 23).