| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
misjudgment |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant slightly damaged the truck he was driving as a result of misjudgment on his part, misjudgment which was induced by a misplaced sign on a bridge underpass. This, as an isolated incident, could hardly be classified as misconduct sufficient to justify dismissal.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
definition |
|
|
Summary:
The test is whether claimant acted intentionally, either wilfully or negligently, in such a way that one can say he was repudiating his contract of employment. It is not every breach of an employee obligation that constitutes misconduct. The breach must be serious enough to justify discharge.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
requiring or refusing a document |
|
Summary:
When a claimant tenders evidence (12 photographs) to a Board, the Board has an obligation to take it under consideration and make it part of the record. The Board should not be selecting from evidence which a claimant submits and keep only the part (2 photographs) which suits it.
