| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
breaches of company policy |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant was working under a collective bargaining agreement. In that agreement, it was considered that a person who did not call in if they were missing work could be terminated. In this case, the claimant did not call in on June 8, 9 and 10, 2009. Apparently the claimant had been ill the previous week for Thursday and Friday and called in at that time. The reason given by the claimant for not calling in on Monday was that he was stressed and didn't think he had to call in. The claimant did not provide a doctor's note for June 8, 9 and 10. The Board of Referees determined that the claimant was aware of the company's police concerning absenteeism and knew that this could cause him to be dismissed. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
unexcused absences from work |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant was working under a collective bargaining agreement. In that agreement, it was considered that a person who did not call in if they were missing work could be terminated. In this case, the claimant did not call in on June 8, 9 and 10, 2009. Apparently the claimant had been ill the previous week for Thursday and Friday and called in at that time. The reason given by the claimant for not calling in on Monday was that he was stressed and didn't think he had to call in. The claimant did not provide a doctor's note for June 8, 9 and 10. The Board of Referees determined that the claimant was aware of the company's police concerning absenteeism and knew that this could cause him to be dismissed. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed.
