| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
death threats |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant was dismissed from his employment for hitting a colleague in the ankle with a metal hook and uttering death threats, according to three witnesses. The Commission found that the claimant’s actions constituted misconduct and imposed a disqualification. The claimant categorically denied having uttered death threats. A majority of the BOR found that the employer’s testimony was more credible. The Umpire found that there was no reason to intervene. In dismissing the application for judicial review, the FCA concluded that it had not been convinced that the Umpire committed an error that would justify the Court’s intervention.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
acts of violence |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant was dismissed from his employment for hitting a colleague in the ankle with a metal hook and uttering death threats, according to three witnesses. The Commission found that the claimant’s actions constituted misconduct and imposed a disqualification. The claimant categorically denied having uttered death threats. A majority of the BOR found that the employer’s testimony was more credible. The Umpire found that there was no reason to intervene. In dismissing the application for judicial review, the FCA concluded that it had not been convinced that the Umpire committed an error that would justify the Court’s intervention.
