| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
absences from work |
|
|
Summary:
Dismissed for showing up late for work or not showing up at all with no notice. Umpire found that the claimant’s behaviour could not be considered as voluntary and deliberate within the meaning of the Tucker decision A-0381.85, since the medical report clearly showed that his behaviour was not voluntary but caused by his illness, alcoholism. Therefore, he did not lose his employment because of his own misconduct within the meaning of the Act.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
alcohol, drugs and gambling |
|
|
Summary:
Dismissed for showing up late for work or not showing up at all with no notice. Umpire found that the claimant’s behaviour could not be considered as voluntary and deliberate within the meaning of the Tucker decision A-0381.85, since the medical report clearly showed that his behaviour was not voluntary but caused by his illness, alcoholism. Therefore, he did not lose his employment because of his own misconduct within the meaning of the Act.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
lateness |
|
|
Summary:
Dismissed for showing up late for work or not showing up at all with no notice. Umpire found that the claimant’s behaviour could not be considered as voluntary and deliberate within the meaning of the Tucker decision A-0381.85, since the medical report clearly showed that his behaviour was not voluntary but caused by his illness, alcoholism. Therefore, he did not lose his employment because of his own misconduct within the meaning of the Act.
