| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
absences from work |
|
|
Summary:
Although it was found in CUB_10733 that claimant in that case lost his job "through his own fault", this does not mean that the Umpire set a hard and fast rule for all subsequent cases in which an employee is absent from work for one day without notice and is dismissed for that reason.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
real reason for dismissal |
|
|
Summary:
The employer was not satisfied with the speed of the claimant's work nor with the wages that he had contracted to pay him. It is my clear impression that misconduct alleged here (absence from work for one day without notice) was the excuse and not the real reason for the dismissal.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
statement of facts required |
|
Summary:
The Board merely noted that the CEIC based its decision on similar CUB cases. It did not address and make a finding on the inconsistent statements made by the parties on the reason underlying the dismissal. It should have analyzed the evidence before itand come to a conclusion. Error of law.
