| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
refusal to obey orders |
|
|
Summary:
Need to identify conditions under which claimant refused to work, whether refusal under those conditions amounts to misconduct and if claimant lost his employment by reason of that misconduct.
As the employer's letter is not in evidence, I am not in a position to determine its contents and consequently whether it was misconduct on the part of the claimant to refuse to sign it... and whether letter was provocative.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Summary:
Had the Board addressed the issue of whether the Commission had discharged the onus upon it to prove by clear unequivocal evidence misconduct on the part of claimant which gave rise to dismissal, it would have allowed the appeal.
In cases such as these [statements highly contradictory] there is a heavy burden or onus upon the party alleging misconduct... to prove it. Third-hand equivocal evidence is not enough.
