| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
violations of contract |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant worked in a residence for senior citizens; during a Norwalk epidemic which required more sanitary care. He is alleged to have had difficulties with an elderly patient who was more difficult than others. The resulting complaint was to the effect the claimant used physical and verbal abuse on the resident and excessive force, yelling at him and struggling while changing his bedding and soiled clothing. Two other care aides witnessed the event on a 97 years of age resident. Others complained about the behaviour on the nightshift. The employer has a "no abuse" policy and a "no restraint" facility. The claimant's actions constituted misconduct as defined by the law. The BOR finds that the claiming lost his employment because of his own misconduct. The Umpire confirms the decision of the BOR and rejects the appeal from the claimants.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
improper language |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant worked in a residence for senior citizens; during a Norwalk epidemic which required more sanitary care. He is alleged to have had difficulties with an elderly patient who was more difficult than others. The resulting complaint was to the effect the claimant used physical and verbal abuse on the resident and excessive force, yelling at him and struggling while changing his bedding and soiled clothing. Two other care aides witnessed the event on a 97 years of age resident. Others complained about the behaviour on the nightshift. The employer has a "no abuse" policy and a "no restraint" facility. The claimant's actions constituted misconduct as defined by the law. The BOR finds that the claiming lost his employment because of his own misconduct. The Umpire confirms the decision of the BOR and rejects the appeal from the claimants.
