| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
criminal acts |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant dismissed after it was brought to the employer's attention that she had been charged with possession of marijuana thereby causing her bond to be revoked. Commission argued that the charge could only be laid on an information of reasonable and probable grounds that the crime alleged had been committed. BOR reasoned that laying a charge does not establish misconduct because the mental element of wilfulness is absent. Guilt cannot be presumed or inferred simply because a charge has been proffered. Referring to FCA in Meunier (A-0130.96), the Umpire recognized that employer had no choice but to dismiss the claimant after claimant's bond was revoked but that she was not dismissed due to misconduct.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant dismissed after it was brought to the employer's attention that she had been charged with possession of marijuana thereby causing her bond to be revoked. Commission argued that the charge could only be laid on an information of reasonable and probable grounds that the crime alleged had been committed. BOR reasoned that laying a charge does not establish misconduct because the mental element of wilfulness is absent. Guilt cannot be presumed or inferred simply because a charge has been proffered. Referring to FCA in Meunier (A-0130.96), the Umpire recognized that employer had no choice but to dismiss the claimant after claimant's bond was revoked but that she was not dismissed due to misconduct.
