| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Summary:
Proof that the job was lost by misconduct must be made by the party alleging it. The burden of proof on all issues is on the balance of probabilities and not beyond a reasonable doubt. When prima facie evidence exists, the onus then shifts to claimant for an innocent explanation.
Railway worker suspended due to violation of operating rules. The Board found that he had been suspended and presumed that he lost his job by reason of his own misconduct. The Board cannot presume that he lost his job by reason of misconduct simply because he was suspended.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
questions to examine |
|
|
Summary:
Most principles applicable to the loss of employment by reason of misconduct are recited in a succinct form by the Umpire in this case.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dereliction of duty |
railway workers |
|
Summary:
The evidence reveals that he admitted to knowing that certain of his actions were violations of the rules. The fact that he did violate certain rules does not necessarily mean misconduct. He had demonstrated his concern to his superior regarding his ability prior to the incident.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
loss of employment |
definition |
|
Summary:
Railway worker who alleges that he had not lost his job but that he had only been suspended without pay. Loss of employment under s. 28 is not limited to a final dismissal, but will also include a suspension. Thus a disqualification can apply in the case of a suspension.
