| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Summary:
Nowhere does the Board identify exactly what duties she refused to do. The Board's decision looks as though it decided that claimant's behaviour at work was unacceptable merely because the employer said it was. This is not sufficient reason for the decision reached.
It must be kept in mind that the burden of proving the misconduct which is alleged is on the Commission. If the Board after weighing all the evidence is in doubt as to whether or not claimant lost her job due to misconduct, the benefit of that doubt must be given to her.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
refusal to obey orders |
|
|
Summary:
Nowhere does the Board identify exactly what duties she refused to do. The Board's decision looks as though it decided that claimant's behaviour at work was unacceptable merely because the employer said it was. This is not sufficient reason for the decision reached.
