| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
theft |
|
|
Summary:
The claimants were disqualified by the Commission for an indefinite period because they had lost their employment due to their own misconduct. They were dismissed by their employer because he determined that they had consumed merchandise (food products) contrary to the policy in this regard. For their part, the claimants indicated that despite the policy in this regard, food consumption was tolerated. The BOR concluded that the claimants had not lost their employment due to their own misconduct. The Umpire upheld the decision stating that the claimants involved could not suspect that their behaviour would jeopardize their employment, given that this behaviour had long been tolerated. The FCA concluded that there was no error in the Umpire's statements with respect to the applicable principle in matters of misconduct and that the Umpire could make this finding based on the evidence. Similar cases: A0189.09, A0190.09, A0191.09, A0194.09 and A0195.09
