| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
breaches of company policy |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant was not laid off with respect to shortage of work. The claimant had advised the employer he had been drinking the night before and didn't wake up until the next afternoon. At that time, he didn't know where his cell phone was or the company vehicle. The claimant had committed a breach of the employer's policy within the meaning of the Act. The BOR found that the claimant knew that it was imperative that he adher to the employer's requests, rules and protocol. His conduct was considered willful, deliberate or so reckless as to approach willfulness and therefore constituted misconduct. The claimant’s appeal is dismissed by the Umpire.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
unexcused absences from work |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant was not laid off with respect to shortage of work. The claimant had advised the employer he had been drinking the night before and didn't wake up until the next afternoon. At that time, he didn't know where his cell phone was or the company vehicle. The claimant had committed a breach of the employer's policy within the meaning of the Act. The BOR found that the claimant knew that it was imperative that he adher to the employer's requests, rules and protocol. His conduct was considered willful, deliberate or so reckless as to approach willfulness and therefore constituted misconduct. The claimant’s appeal is dismissed by the Umpire.
