| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dereliction of duty |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant, a customer care representative, was dismissed for disconnecting customer calls before responding to the enquiries. The claimant said she was under great pressure to maintain the employer's mandatory standard of 5.5 calls per hour. The Board's role was not to determine whether the misconduct was justified or was the appropriate action - it had to decide whether disconnecting customer calls before responding amounted to misconduct. The Umpire ignored past rulings to the effect that it is sufficient for a misconduct to occur when the reprehensible act or omission was made wilfully (consciously, deliberately or intentionally). The claimant should have known, or foreseen that disconnecting of calls would likely result in dismissal. The fact that the claimant was afraid of losing her job and thought that her actions were the only solution certainly calls for sympathy but this does not alter the legal nature and implications of the acts committed. The fact that other employees, guilty of the same misconduct, were not fired is irrelevant.
