| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
unexcused absences from work |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant arrested on 27-12-96, incarcerated for a breach of probation and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. He was released on 22-03-97. Neither he nor his father did call his work to notify them of his absence. Claimant claimed that he made every reasonable attempt to contact his employer but was physically unable to do so because of incarceration. Referring to FCA decision in Brissette (A-1342.92), Umpire held that if, due to his misconduct outside of the workplace, he is unable to fulfil that contract, then he has lost his job due to misconduct.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
criminal acts |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant arrested on 27-12-96, incarcerated for a breach of probation and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. He was released on 22-03-97. Neither he nor his father did call his work to notify them of his absence. Claimant claimed that he made every reasonable attempt to contact his employer but was physically unable to do so because of incarceration. Referring to FCA decision in Brissette (A-1342.92), Umpire held that if, due to his misconduct outside of the workplace, he is unable to fulfil that contract, then he has lost his job due to misconduct.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
elsewhere than at work |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant arrested on 27-12-96, incarcerated for a breach of probation and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. He was released on 22-03-97. Neither he nor his father did call his work to notify them of his absence. Claimant claimed that he made every reasonable attempt to contact his employer but was physically unable to do so because of incarceration. Referring to FCA decision in Brissette (A-1342.92), Umpire held that if, due to his misconduct outside of the workplace, he is unable to fulfil that contract, then he has lost his job due to misconduct.
