| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
absences from work |
|
|
Summary:
After issuing six warnings to the claimant for absenteeism, the employer decided to dismiss the claimant. These warnings informed the claimant that the absences were unjustified, he was supposed to submit a work schedule, the situation was unacceptable and serious measures would be taken. The claimant was familiar with the employer's policy on absenteeism and he knew that he would be dismissed. The FCA has long considered absenteeism to be misconduct under section 30 of the Act. In the case of Mishibinijima v. Canada (A.G.), 2007 FCA, Judge Nadon stated that «There can be no disputing, in my view, that an employee's repeated failure to show up for work is a serious breach of the employment contract, all the more so when the employee has been warned by his employer that such a failure will result in his dismissal.» Misconduct is therefore apparent since the claimant's conduct was deliberate and the actions leading to the dismissal were deliberate, desired, or intentional. There is misconduct if the claimant knew or should have known that his/her conduct was impeding the carrying out of his obligations to the employer and that, as a consequence, it was highly possible that he would be dismissed.
