|
EI - Labour Disputes. Greening v. Canada (Attorney General)
In Greening v. Canada (Attorney General) (Fed CA, 2025) the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed a JR, here against a denial of EI benefits "because benefits are not available to an individual who loses employment because of a work stoppage attributable to a labour dispute" [EIA s.36]:[1] The applicant, Tammie Greening, was one of several employees locked out by their employer during a labour dispute. The applicant and other locked-out individuals applied for employment insurance benefits but were denied because benefits are not available to an individual who loses employment because of a work stoppage attributable to a labour dispute: Employment Insurance Act, S.C. 1996, c. 23, s. 36.
[2] The applicant appealed that decision to the General Division of the Social Security Tribunal. The appeal was a representative case for the group of locked-out individuals. Although satisfied there was a labour dispute, the General Division concluded that there was no work stoppage because the employer was able to continue operations during the lockout by redeploying non-union staff and engaging others, including summer students and contractors: TG et al. v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission, 2023 SST 1871.
[3] The Canada Employment Insurance Commission appealed, arguing the General Division erred in law in interpreting "“work stoppage”" as used in section 36 of the Employment Insurance Act. The Appeal Division of the Social Security Tribunal agreed. It concluded that the General Division’s interpretation both misinterpreted the jurisprudence and was inconsistent with the text, context and purpose of the relevant provision. The Appeal Division found there was a work stoppage, allowed the appeal and, in a decision that applied to the group, decided the applicant was not entitled to employment insurance benefits: TG et al. v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission, 2024 SST 32.
|
