| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Summary:
A finding of misconduct now carries a very severe sanction for the claimant, namely the loss of any benefits for the whole benefit period following his claim. The Commission has the burden of proof of misconduct and Boards must see that the Commission meets that burden.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
harassment |
|
|
Summary:
I have no doubt that sexual harassment can constitute misconduct for which people should be dismissed. But this does not excuse the Commission from making serious efforts to prove it. It has the duty to do so if it wishes to deprive claimants of potentially many thousands of dollars in benefits.
Ambiguous statement put on file by CEIC officer following phone conversation with employer. The disgusting and repulsive nature of sexual harassment does not justify a finding that it existed simply on second or third-hand reports in the face of direct denials by a claimant.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
by telephone |
|
Summary:
Ambiguous statement put on file by CEIC officer after a phone conversation. No evidence that the employer ever saw the statement or had it read to him. This kind of evidence is simply not good enough when a finding of misconduct carries the heavy sanction of loss of many thousands of dollars.
