| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
suspension * |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant had been dismissed because he had illegally connected the cable to a tenant’s apartment on two occasions. The Commission excluded the claimant from receiving benefits because he lost his employment by reason of his misconduct. In the appeal, the BOR upheld the Commission’s decision. The claimant then requested another hearing before the BOR pursuant to section 120 of the EI Act so that it could take into consideration an agreement he had made with his employer. In the agreement, the employer substituted the dismissal with a suspension without pay for three weeks and the applicant waived his reinstatement in the workplace following the suspension. In light of this new evidence, the BOR determined that the applicant qualified for benefits. The appeal of that decision by the Commission was allowed by the SST which ruled that the applicant was no longer employed because of his misconduct. The FCA concluded that the agreement did not result in changing the sanction and therefore did not allow the BOR to amend its original decision. The claimant having waived the reinstatement clause of the agreement, whatever it is, whether he has lost his employment due to his misconduct or left his employment voluntarily without just cause, he should be excluded from benefits. The application for judicial review was dismissed.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
tantamount to dismissal |
|
Summary:
The claimant had been dismissed because he had illegally connected the cable to a tenant’s apartment on two occasions. The Commission excluded the claimant from receiving benefits because he lost his employment by reason of his misconduct. In the appeal, the BOR upheld the Commission’s decision. The claimant then requested another hearing before the BOR pursuant to section 120 of the EI Act so that it could take into consideration an agreement he had made with his employer. In the agreement, the employer substituted the dismissal with a suspension without pay for three weeks and the applicant waived his reinstatement in the workplace following the suspension. In light of this new evidence, the BOR determined that the applicant qualified for benefits. The appeal of that decision by the Commission was allowed by the SST which ruled that the applicant was no longer employed because of his misconduct. The FCA concluded that the agreement did not result in changing the sanction and therefore did not allow the BOR to amend its original decision. The claimant having waived the reinstatement clause of the agreement, whatever it is, whether he has lost his employment due to his misconduct or left his employment voluntarily without just cause, he should be excluded from benefits. The application for judicial review was dismissed.
