| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
definition |
|
|
Summary:
The word "misconduct" is not defined as such in the case law. It depends largely on the circumstances. The breach must, however, be sufficiently serious that its perpetrator could normally foresee that it would likely lead to dismissal. BOR must ask itself whether the wrongful act committed is sufficiently serious to constitute misconduct within the meaning of the Act.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
merit of dismissal |
|
|
Summary:
It was determined that the claimant had been dismissed as a result of her own misconduct. Contrary to the employer's instructions, she had cooked a chicken without defrosting or washing it and without removing the bag of giblets. FCA found that neither the Umpire nor the BOR questioned whether the frozen chicken incident, considering the explanation provided by the claimant, was a sufficiently serious breach to constitute misconduct within the meaning of the Act. The matter was thus referred back to the Umpire for reconsideration.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
questions to examine |
|
|
Summary:
It was determined that the claimant had been dismissed as a result of her own misconduct. Contrary to the employer's instructions, she had cooked a chicken without defrosting or washing it and without removing the bag of giblets. FCA found that neither the Umpire nor the BOR questioned whether the frozen chicken incident, considering the explanation provided by the claimant, was a sufficiently serious breach to constitute misconduct within the meaning of the Act. The matter was thus referred back to the Umpire for reconsideration.
