| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
refusal to obey orders |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant was terminated because he refused to follow a direction to work on a particular machine. The claimant had not advised his employer that he had some restrictions as to what he could do in respect of his physical ability. The machines were of different sizes. The claimant would not attempt to work on a heavy machine because of his physical restrictions. The claimant had refused to carry out normal duties of his occupation. The claimant who was aware of his physical restrictions failed to provide the employer with this information and signed by a physician. That was a breach of trust between the claimant and his employer. The acts of the claimant were wilful because he knew that he should have provided the essential information to his employer so that he could be properly assigned to work. According to the Umpire, the breach of trust in failing to disclose and his failure to carry out work assigned to him without having disclosed his condition to his employer are acts of misconduct.
