Is lack of work enough to prevent an adjudicator from hearing a complaint?

Lack of work is one of the circumstances described in subsection 242(3.1) of Part III of the Canada Labour Code that deprives an adjudicator of the proper jurisdiction to hear the complaint here at issue. As stated in Rogers Cablesystems Ltd v. Roe, 2000 CanLII 16158 (FC), paras 30-32, the policy underlying this provision is “that an employer is best placed to determine how to organize [its] business”, which means that, before accepting jurisdiction, an adjudicator needs to satisfy himself that the termination involved results from a lack of work or a discontinuance of a function, and that the decision was made in good faith.