| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
criminal acts |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant worked as a security guard and needed a licence issued by the government to perform his job. He could not renew his licence because he had a criminal record (impaired driving). His employer gave him the choice of being dismissed on the spot or resigning. He preferred to resign to avoid having a bad record. The Board of Referees erred in fact and in law. The claimant could no longer work as a security guard without a licence for that purpose. He could not renew his licence because of his offence. Therefore, clearly, he lost his employment because of that offence, which constitutes misconduct within the meaning of the Act. Although the employer wanted to do the claimant a favour in giving him the choice of resigning, it is evident that the misconduct existed at the time of his resignation.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
real reason for dismissal |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant worked as a security guard and needed a licence issued by the government to perform his job. He could not renew his licence because he had a criminal record (impaired driving). His employer gave him the choice of being dismissed on the spot or resigning. He preferred to resign to avoid having a bad record. The Board of Referees erred in fact and in law. The claimant could no longer work as a security guard without a licence for that purpose. He could not renew his licence because of his offence. Therefore, clearly, he lost his employment because of that offence, which constitutes misconduct within the meaning of the Act. Although the employer wanted to do the claimant a favour in giving him the choice of resigning, it is evident that the misconduct existed at the time of his resignation.
