| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
unexcused absences from work |
|
|
Summary:
Post office worker with 10 years' service who phoned in sick one day prior to his departure on vacation to Jamaica. I have grave doubts that the one isolated instance of alleged false representation by an employee would be sufficient to constitute misconduct. Seems an excuse for dismissal.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
comments on conduct of hearing |
|
Summary:
Commission counsel sought to file a statement of the Board on the conduct of the hearing, prepared after the fact at the instance of the Commission, to counter claimant's allegations. I refused to permit the introduction on this statement: it was self-serving and new evidence.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
natural justice |
free of bias |
|
Summary:
I have listened to the tape. The impatient, argumentative and confrontational attitude displayed by one member leads me to conclude that the whole proceeding was tainted by bias, that a reasonably well-informed person would conclude from this attitude that the panel would exercise a biased judgment.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
statement of facts required |
|
Summary:
It is well established that a Board commits an error in law when it simply echoes the determination of the Commission or states a bare opinion upholding the same without making any findings of fact material to its decision. I find that to be the case here.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
statement of facts |
as a requirement |
|
Summary:
It is well established that a Board commits an error in law when it simply echoes the determination of the Commission or states a bare opinion upholding the same without making any findings of fact material to its decision. I find that to be the case here.
