| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
absences from work |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant was aware of his employer's practice in regard to notice of an absence from work, and had a duty to notify the employer himself of his intention to be absent from work because of his father's illness. The fact that he tried to transmit his message through a fellow worker does not suffice.
The case law has frequently reiterated that employees who lose their employment for having neglected to contact their employer, in order to notify the employer that they will be unable to report for work, lose their job through their own misconduct.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
negligence |
|
|
Summary:
To the extent that the Board relied on the claimant's "negligence", I think that it did not address the real question at issue and therefore erred in law. The concept of misconduct goes beyond that of negligence, for it implies a deliberate or voluntary act by an employee in regard to his employer.
