| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
alcohol, drugs and gambling |
|
|
Summary:
The dissenting member expressed concern that an alcoholic might have insufficient control to be considered capable of wilful conduct, that claimant's conduct during the 2-day absence could have been inadvertent and that claimant may not have had the control necessary to resist a drink.
It was claimant's failure to abide by the rules against drinking established in a treatment programme which was at the root of his misconduct and the related unreported absence. It is reasonable to assume that the decision to drink is made when sober and with knowledge of the consequences.
