| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
breaches of company policy |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant was dismissed on the ground that he was intoxicated in his room. The employer prohibited drinking in the rooms provided for employees and had a zero-tolerance policy regarding intoxication in the workplace. The claimant indicated that his dismissal was part of an anticipated layoff of some one hundred employees and that the purpose of the disciplinary measure was for the employer to avoid paying for an airline ticket for his return home. The FCA indicated that the Board was justified in taking into account the employer’s practice during similar incidents since these facts confirmed the real cause of the dismissal, that is, the employer dismissed the claimant to avoid having to pay for the claimant’s trip home following an anticipated layoff.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
justification |
others misconduct themselves |
|
Summary:
The claimant was dismissed on the ground that he was intoxicated in his room. The employer prohibited drinking in the rooms provided for employees and had a zero-tolerance policy regarding intoxication in the workplace. The claimant indicated that his dismissal was part of an anticipated layoff of some one hundred employees and that the purpose of the disciplinary measure was for the employer to avoid paying for an airline ticket for his return home. The FCA indicated that the Board was justified in taking into account the employer’s practice during similar incidents since these facts confirmed the real cause of the dismissal, that is, the employer dismissed the claimant to avoid having to pay for the claimant’s trip home following an anticipated layoff.
