| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
refusal to obey orders |
|
|
Summary:
An employee has an obligation to obey the directions of his employer. While one act of disobedience will not normally justify dismissal, the cumulative effect of a series of such acts will, said the Umpire. Upheld by FC.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
union activities |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant argues that as union representative he is entitled to special consideration. This is not so. An employer cannot fire one under the guise of misconduct if real motivation is union activities, but union representatives have same obligations as other employees to obey orders. Dimissed by FC.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
change in duties |
|
|
Summary:
Union representative who refused to cooperate in the implementation of technological changes affecting his job. Demerit points in excess of maximum allowed. Investigation held as per collective agreement. No ground for reducing a 6-week disqualification. Dismissed by FC.
