| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant, through complete secondary hearsay evidence, is charged with being a drunk, a criminal, a liar and involved in obtaining false medical certificates. Such evidence should be examined very carefully when there is absolute denial from one who gives verifiable evidence.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
missing information |
|
|
Summary:
There is an absolute denial by claimant who not only appears personally at the hearing but who gives the names of the doctor he consulted and the constable with whom he dealt when alleged to have been impaired. This was verifiable evidence for the Commission to check.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
questions to examine |
|
|
Summary:
The Board must find as a fact whether or not there has been misconduct and if so state the facts which constitute the misconduct, then go further and determine whether claimant has lost his employment because of that misconduct.
