Summary of Issue: Unauthorized Leave Of Absence

Decision A0042.13 Full Text of Decision A0042.13

The claimant was incarcerated from March 6 to April 16, 2012 as a result of a complaint filed by his spouse that he had uttered death threats against her. On March 8, 2012, he received a letter from his employer informing him that his absence was unauthorized ans asking him to appear at work and justify his absence. While still incarcerated, the claimant contacted his manager to explain that he had no choice but to resign, given that he did not know when he would be released. On April 20, 2012, he filed a claim for benefits. The Commission informed the claimant that it could not pay him benefits because he had voluntarily left his employment without just cause. By allowing the application for judicial review, the FCA explained that the concept of misconduct does not require proof of penal liability. The FCA repeated the test for misconduct and found that the evidence showed that the claimant’s behaviour had led to his incarceration and to the loss of his employment. The FCA indicated that the BOR had not taken into account this evidence and that the Umpire should have intervened.

Decision A0457.10 Full Text of Decision A0457.10

The claimant signed an employment contract stipulating that he would be entitled to three weeks of paid holidays upon completing one year of service. A few months later, he requested vacation leave. His request was denied in part because the claimant did not complete one year of service. The record suggests that the claimant informed his employer that he would not report to work for the days in question, regardless of the fact that his leave request had been denied. The employer informed him that he had abandoned his employment. According to the FCA, the Commission clearly found that the event triggering the loss of employment was the voluntary act of insisting on taking days off without the consent of the employer.

Decision A0636.08 Full Text of Decision A0636.08

The Umpire allowed the appeal of the claimant from a decision of the BOR indicating that he had been dismissed from his employment by reason of his own misconduct. The Umpire held that there was no evidence supporting the BOR's finding of fact that the claimant left for vacation knowing that his leave request had not been approved. The FCA indicated that it was unreasonable for the BOR to conclude as it did and held that the most the BOR could have found on the evidence before it was that the claimant went on a vacation knowing that he had not received formal approval of his leave request.

Decision A0376.08 Full Text of Decision A0376.08

In this case, the Umpire had allowed the claimant's appeal from a decision of the BOR. The Umpire had found that s. 32(1) of the EIA was not applicable because there had been no agreement between the claimant and her employer as to the date which she would resume employment, as required by s. 32(1)(b) of the EIA. In allowing the application, the FCA held that the two conditions set out in s. 32(1) of the EIA were met. Firstly, the period of leave was authorized by the employer and secondly, the date of the claimant's return to her job was agreed to between the employer and the claimant. The Umpire's decision was set aside.

Decision 65154 Full Text of Decision 65154

The claimant was often absent from the workplace for prolonged periods of time which he asserts was related to legal proceeding. The employer tolerated these absences to a certain point, but when the claimant failed to show up for work in May 2005, he was deemed to have left his employment and was thereby terminated. It is well established that when an employee is absent without leave for a prolonged period, and without notice, this may be construed as voluntary termination.

Decision 26856 Full Text of Decision 26856

Requested 6 weeks of leave to allow her to visit her family in Vietnam but was given only 3. The Board's conclusion that the claimant in effect quit her job when she knowingly decided to embark upon an unauthorized vacation cannot be put in issue.

Decision 23892 Full Text of Decision 23892

Left because he was denied a 6-week leave of absence. Father ill and hospitalized in Lebanon. Medical certificate on file. Did not act in a prudent manner. Had he informed his employer of his father's health condition, he might have been granted leave. He is really the author of his own misfortune.

Decision 19508 Full Text of Decision 19508

4 weeks' leave following vacation. True that the employer could have been more accommodating by notifying him earlier that it would only allow 1 week but it was under no obligation to do so. Claimant assumed, without reason, that his request was grantedand made travel plans. The employer had a perfect right to refuse the claimant's request and it did so. The claimant as well had a perfect right to refuse to return to work when he was scheduled to do so but must now bear the consequences of that decision.

Decision 14239A Full Text of Decision 14239A

The claimant admitted that he was told there was no work for only 1 or 2 days and yet left town for 7 days. The Board found that this amounted to voluntarily leaving and I am not prepared to interfere with that finding.

Decision 16308 Full Text of Decision 16308

It has already been decided that when an employee is absent without leave for a prolonged period and without notice, this can be construed as voluntary termination. In this case, a 2 day absence with advanced notice cannot be interpreted as termination. Absurd conclusion by the Board.

Decision 14166 Full Text of Decision 14166

Requested leave to go on a visit to Holland to see mother-in-law who was quite ill. He was warned that this would mean termination. The Board found that this was voluntarily leaving. In my view, the Board could have come to no other decision than it did.

Decision 13550 Full Text of Decision 13550

According to the case law, quitting a job because leave is denied is not just cause.

Decision 13389 Full Text of Decision 13389

The claimant brought about the termination of his employment through his own failure to return when he should have, or to advise his employer otherwise.

Decision 11994 Full Text of Decision 11994

Claimant left at 5:30 instead of at 7:30 without permission and after having been warned she might have to suffer the consequences. She had every intention however of continuing with her employment. This is not voluntarily leaving employment.

Decision 11501 Full Text of Decision 11501

Gave notice to employer he would leave one month on vacation. Leave denied but he nevertheless left on vacation. The jurisprudence supports this conclusion: tantamount to voluntary leaving. There are no extenuating circumstances to reduce the maximum 6 weeks.