| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dishonesty |
|
|
Summary:
Spotted by 3 security guards putting bottles of wine in someone's bag. Claimant was refused to cross-examine guards. Evidence adduced is hearsay upon hearsay which has been challenged on every relevant point. Cause of dismissal may have been suspicion only.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Summary:
The Board did not identify any conduct on the part of the claimant which could be construed as misconduct and thus was not in a position to find that claimant's loss of employment was by reason of misconduct.
Heavy onus on the party alleging misconduct to prove it. The onus has been likened to that on the Crown in criminal cases to prove beyond reasonable doubt. While I have some reservation that the burden is that strong, the evidence must be clear, strong and unequivocal.
