| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
definition |
|
|
Summary:
The construction of "misconduct" is a question of law. Its application to the evidence is a question of fact. The evidence must fit the definition of misconduct. Misconduct has been defined as conduct that is wilful, conscious and deliberate. An act of misconduct must be reprehensible in nature. BOR didn't apply that test in this case.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
absences from work |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant left for vacation on 2-2-95 and scheduled to return on 25-2-95. Claimant's wife contacted the employer to let him know that he would be delayed in his return. BOR found misconduct because the employer had to replace him during his absence. Held that it was apparent that the claimant had every intention of returning to his job. BOR's conclusion that claimant's conduct constituted misconduct is based on an irrelevant consideration.
