| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
absences from work |
|
|
Summary:
The Claimant was terminated from his employment for leaving his workplace following technical problems with work equipment. Prior to leaving, the claimant left a message to his employer stating that he was returning home because he was angry and was not feeling well. The Commission took the position that the claimant had lost his employment by reason of his misconduct. Both the BOR and the Umpire held that the claimant's conduct did not constitute a serious breach which would lead him to believe that he could be dismissed. The FCA reiterated that the BOR must only determine if the claimant's conduct constitutes misconduct pursuant to the EIA and not whether the severity of the disciplinary action is justified. The FCA held that the claimant's conduct was deliberate, that he should have known that his conduct could lead to serious disciplinary action and that the fact that the claimant expected a lesser disciplinary action is irrelevant. The FCA concluded that the BOR exceeded its jurisdiction by ruling on whether the termination was justified and that the Umpire should have intervened to correct this error.
