| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
lateness |
|
|
Summary:
Dismissed for having failed to indicate instances of lateness in his daily report. BOR claimed that these actions constituted dishonesty or fraud. Umpire ruled that the BOR had committed an error of law in finding that acts of which the claimant was accused constituted misconduct according to the meaning given to that term in s. 28(1) of the Act, since the claimant’s supervisor was the first person to be informed of his lateness. Consequently, the claimant never intended to rob his employer.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
meaning of a term |
|
Summary:
Dismissed for having failed to indicate instances of lateness in his daily report. BOR claimed that these actions constituted dishonesty or fraud. Umpire ruled that the BOR had committed an error of law in finding that acts of which the claimant was accused constituted misconduct according to the meaning given to that term in s. 28(1) of the Act, since the claimant’s supervisor was the first person to be informed of his lateness. Consequently, the claimant never intended to rob his employer.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
misconduct |
definition |
|
Summary:
The Commission must prove that the act of which the claimant was accused constitutes a breach of an explicit or implicit obligation of the contract of employment, of such gravity that the employee normally should have foreseen that it would be likely to bring about his dismissal. The act must also have a psychological aspect. The conduct of which the claimant was accused must be voluntary or deliberate, or be the result of such heedlessness or negligence that it borders on the deliberate. It is sufficient that the claimant have acted consciously and in full knowledge of what he was doing. The misconduct must be the effective cause of the dismissal, not just the pretext for it.
