Decision A-0241.82

Case Number Claimant Judge Language Decision date
Decision A-0241.82 Davlut D.  Federal  English 1982-12-10
Decision Appealed Appellant Corresponding Case
Unspecified  No N/A 


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]


Date modified: