| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
driving permit |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant started working as a truck driver in 02-94. In 06-94, claimant advised the employer that he could not carry on working as a driver: licence suspended for an offence committed in 07-93 i.e. seven months before he started to work. In a majority decision, the FCA held that claimant had lost his job without just cause. The fact that he could not retain his employment and had to resign following the loss of his licence is certainly a breach of duty which occurred during his employment. This breach was a direct result of his misconduct. To claim that the misconduct occurred prior to the employment is not a cause for disqualification is too mechanical an application of Brissette (A-1342-92) and Nolet (A-517-91). It fails to appreciate that the timing factor does not stand alone. It is but another facet of the casual link which must exist between the misconduct and the loss of employment.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
tantamount to dismissal |
|
Summary:
Claimant started working as a truck driver in 02-94. In 06-94, claimant advised the employer that he could not carry on working as a driver: licence suspended for an offence committed in 07-93 i.e. seven months before he started to work. In a majority decision, the FCA held that claimant had lost his job without just cause. **The umpire referred to the misconduct of the applicant. This is not a case where the applicant lost his employment by reason of misconduct, since he voluntarily left his employment. But it was not an error on the part of the umpire to assert that where a term of employment is the maintenance of a driver's Class A licence, the loss of that licence by the actions of the applicant amounted to loosing his employment by reason of his misconduct. This statement is not contradictory to the decision of this Court in Nolet (A-517-91) cited in Brissette (A-1342-92).
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
misconduct |
misconduct prior to employment |
|
Summary:
Claimant started working as a truck driver in 02-94. In 06-94, claimant advised the employer that he could not carry on working as a driver: licence suspended for an offence committed in 07-93 i.e. seven months before he started to work. In a majority decision, the FCA held that claimant had lost his job without just cause. The fact that he could not retain his employment and had to resign following the loss of his licence is certainly a breach of duty which occurred during his employment. This breach was a direct result of his misconduct. To claim that the misconduct occurred prior to the employment is not a cause for disqualification is too mechanical an application of Brissette (A-1342-92) and Nolet (A-517-91). It fails to appreciate that the timing factor does not stand alone. It is but another facet of the casual link which must exist between the misconduct and the loss of employment.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
misconduct |
definition |
|
Summary:
Claimant started working as a truck driver in 02-94. In 06-94, claimant advised the employer that he could not carry on working as a driver: licence suspended for an offence committed in 07-93 i.e. seven months before he started to work. In a majority decision, the FCA held that claimant had lost his job without just cause. The fact that he could not retain his employment and had to resign following the loss of his licence is certainly a breach of duty which occurred during his employment. This breach was a direct result of his misconduct. To claim that the misconduct occurred prior to the employment is not a cause for disqualification is too mechanical an application of Brissette (A-1342-92) and Nolet (A-517-91). It fails to appreciate that the timing factor does not stand alone. It is but another facet of the casual link which must exist between the misconduct and the loss of employment.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
misconduct |
criminal acts |
|
Summary:
Claimant started working as a truck driver in 02-94. In 06-94, claimant advised the employer that he could not carry on working as a driver: licence suspended for an offence committed in 07-93 i.e. seven months before he started to work. In a majority decision, the FCA held that claimant had lost his job without just cause. The fact that he could not retain his employment and had to resign following the loss of his licence is certainly a breach of duty which occurred during his employment. This breach was a direct result of his misconduct. To claim that the misconduct occurred prior to the employment is not a cause for disqualification is too mechanical an application of Brissette (A-1342-92) and Nolet (A-517-91). It fails to appreciate that the timing factor does not stand alone. It is but another facet of the casual link which must exist between the misconduct and the loss of employment.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
misconduct |
elsewhere than at work |
|
Summary:
Claimant started working as a truck driver in 02-94. In 06-94, claimant advised the employer that he could not carry on working as a driver: licence suspended for an offence committed in 07-93 i.e. seven months before he started to work. In a majority decision, the FCA held that claimant had lost his job without just cause. The fact that he could not retain his employment and had to resign following the loss of his licence is certainly a breach of duty which occurred during his employment. This breach was a direct result of his misconduct. To claim that the misconduct occurred prior to the employment is not a cause for disqualification is too mechanical an application of Brissette (A-1342-92) and Nolet (A-517-91). It fails to appreciate that the timing factor does not stand alone. It is but another facet of the casual link which must exist between the misconduct and the loss of employment.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
misconduct |
questions to examine |
|
Summary:
Claimant started working as a truck driver in 02-94. In 06-94, claimant advised the employer that he could not carry on working as a driver: licence suspended for an offence committed in 07-93 i.e. seven months before he started to work. In a majority decision, the FCA held that claimant had lost his job without just cause. **In Nolet (A-517-91), the Court was stressing the need for there to be a causal nexus between the misconduct and the termination. It recognized that if there were no such nexus, a claimant with a criminal record could never qualify for benefits under the Act, even if his or her loss of employment was unrelated to the criminal offences committed in the past. The case does not say that misconduct related to an event which occurred prior to the employment relationship, the punishment for which occurs during an employment relationship, and which causes the employee to be unable to perform his or her job can never be a cause for disqualification under S.28.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
no reasonable alternative |
|
Summary:
Claimant started working as a truck driver in 02-94. In 06-94, claimant advised the employer that he could not carry on working as a driver: licence suspended for an offence committed in 07-93 i.e. seven months before he started to work. In a majority decision, the FCA held that claimant had lost his job without just cause. **The Act provides some understanding for the meaning of the phrase "just cause" for voluntarily leaving an employment so as to determine if "the claimant had no reasonable alternative to leaving the employment". An examination of the enumerated circumstances [ss.28(4)] indicate situations occurring independently from the will or participation of the claimant and beyond his control. Admittedly, the applicant in the case at bar had no other reasonable alternative but to leave his employment. But the reason of his leaving was the loss of his driving licence for which he was responsible, having been found guilty of a drinking and driving offence. This was not a "just cause".
