| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dishonesty |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant dismissed following a theft at her employer's premises. She argued that she had a gambling addiction and that because of this weakness she did not have the psychological element for the misconduct to be clear. BOR accepted her argument. Commission claimed that a person who argues that because of emotional problems there was no misconduct cannot, in the absence of supporting evidence, be excused for the misconduct of which that person is accused. Citing the FCA decision in Turgeon (A-0582.96), Umpire found for the Commission.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
alcohol, drugs and gambling |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant dismissed following a theft at her employer's premises. She argued that she had a gambling addiction and that because of this weakness she did not have the psychological element for the misconduct to be clear. BOR accepted her argument. Commission claimed that a person who argues that because of emotional problems there was no misconduct cannot, in the absence of supporting evidence, be excused for the misconduct of which that person is accused. Citing the FCA decision in Turgeon (A-0582.96), Umpire found for the Commission.
