| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
criminal acts |
|
|
Summary:
In determining misconduct under the Act, it is a question not necessarily of whether or not there is a criminal conviction but of whether the claimant's actions seriously jeopardized the employer's interests.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dishonesty |
|
|
Summary:
Counsel for claimant maintained that as long as the determining factor in dismissal is theft, the theft should be established by criminal conviction. Umpire refuted this argument, saying that, even without a conviction, misconduct based on lack of integrity or dishonesty may lead to dismissal within the meaning of the Act.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
theft |
|
|
Summary:
Counsel for claimant maintained that as long as the determining factor in dismissal is theft, the theft should be established by criminal conviction. Umpire refuted this argument, saying that, even without a conviction, misconduct based on lack of integrity or dishonesty may lead to dismissal within the meaning of the Act.
