| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
alcohol, drugs and gambling |
|
|
Summary:
The BOR found that, in light of the claimant's 14 years of service and the fact that it was his first offence of this kind, smoking a joint in the workplace could not lead to disqualification for reasons of misconduct. It felt that the sanction was disproportionate to the offence. The Court, citing in particular Fahkari (A-0732.95), Namaro (A-0834.82) and Secours (A-0352.94), ruled that the role of the BOR was not to question whether the severity of the sanction was justified or whether the employee's gesture constituted valid grounds for dismissal, but whether the gesture constituted misconduct within the meaning of the Act.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
merit of dismissal |
|
|
Summary:
The BOR found that, in light of the claimant's 14 years of service and the fact that it was his first offence of this kind, smoking a joint in the workplace could not lead to disqualification for reasons of misconduct. It felt that the sanction was disproportionate to the offence. The Court, citing in particular Fahkari (A-0732.95), Namaro (A-0834.82) and Secours (A-0352.94), ruled that the role of the BOR was not to question whether the severity of the sanction was justified or whether the employee's gesture constituted valid grounds for dismissal, but whether the gesture constituted misconduct within the meaning of the Act.
