| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
lateness |
|
|
Summary:
Dismissed for being late for work. Umpire indicated that for misconduct to be proved, 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. Umpire therefore concluded that the BOR had erred in determining that there had been misconduct within the meaning of the Act. Claimant did not display heedlessness because the circumstances that resulted in his lateness, namely a power failure, were beyond his control.
