| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
weight of statements |
|
Summary:
The BOR concluded that the harassment committed by the appellant, including sexual harassment, was not wilful or deliberate despite the evidence presented by the employer. The Court stated that the BOR could not ignore relevant evidence or reject it without explaining the reasons for doing so or for which he felt he was warranted in ignoring such evidence. In this case, this evidence concerned the reasons for the claimant's dismissal, the numerous warnings he received in connection with his misconduct, a suspension that was applied and the incidents which ultimately led to the dismissal. Such a conclusion on the part of the BOR appears to be either arbitrary and abusive or mistaken in law in the absence of explanations that may have justified it.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
from employer |
|
Summary:
The BOR concluded that the harassment committed by the claimant, including sexual harassment, was not wilful or deliberate despite the evidence presented by the employer. The Court stated that the BOR could not ignore relevant evidence or reject it without explaining the reasons for doing so or for which he felt he was warranted in ignoring such evidence. In this case, this evidence concerned the reasons for the claimant's dismissal, the numerous warnings he received in connection with his misconduct, a suspension that was applied and the incidents which ultimately led to the dismissal. Such a conclusion on the part of the BOR appears to be either arbitrary and abusive or mistaken in law in the absence of explanations that may have justified it.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
misconduct |
harassment |
|
Summary:
The BOR concluded that the harassment committed by the claimant, including sexual harassment, was not wilful or deliberate despite the evidence presented by the employer. The Court stated that the BOR could not ignore relevant evidence or reject it without explaining the reasons for doing so or for which he felt he was warranted in ignoring such evidence. In this case, this evidence concerned the reasons for the claimant's dismissal, the numerous warnings he received in connection with his misconduct, a suspension that was applied and the incidents which ultimately led to the dismissal. Such a conclusion on the part of the BOR appears to be either arbitrary and abusive or mistaken in law in the absence of explanations that may have justified it.
