| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Summary:
It has been frequently held by Umpires, and I think correctly held, that the onus lies on the Commission to establish that the loss of employment was by reason of claimant's own misconduct. The Board must be satisfied that the misconduct was the reason not the excuse.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
merit of dismissal |
|
|
Summary:
Counsel said, in holding that claimant was guilty of misconduct which justified his dismissal, that the Umpire had clearly asked the wrong question. With some hesitation I believe he did misconstrue what the Board is required to do, whether dismissal was due to misconduct.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dual reason for dismissal |
|
|
Summary:
If the Umpire or Board finds that the dismissal was due partly to misconduct under 41(1) and partly to union lawful activity in 41(2), it may be appropriate to reduce the disqualification under 43(1) to reflect the lawful activity.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
rationale |
|
|
Summary:
The policy is that no one should benefit fully from a loss of employment if his own misconduct at the work place is involved and no one should lose his insurance benefits if lawful activities are partly the cause of the loss of employment. [p. 10]
