| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Summary:
Extensive jurisprudence indicating that when misconduct is alleged it must be proven by the persons alleging it. Not convinced that Board applied this. Faced with conflicting stories, it made no determination that an offence occurred. Decision set aside.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
personality conflict |
|
|
Summary:
[After examining some tests for misconduct under labour laws]. It is clear that personality conflicts do not constitute misconduct.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
definition |
|
|
Summary:
Applying these tests [examined relative to labour laws] to the facts of this case, no conclusive proof that claimant repudiated the contract of employment so as to constitute misconduct.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
refusal to obey orders |
|
|
Summary:
Truck driver whose explanation for allegedly refusing a dispatch appears credible and could not be said to have repudiated the contract of employment. No conclusive proof of misconduct.
