| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
merit of dismissal |
|
|
Summary:
The Board's view was that dismissal was too severe a penalty. The Board asked themselves the wrong question. The correct one to answer was whether claimant was dismissed for misconduct, not whether circumstances justified dismissal for misconduct.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
real reason for dismissal |
|
|
Summary:
It is enough that misconduct is a partial cause of claimant's dismissal. Otherwise, the word "only" or a similar word would have to be read into ss.41(1). Well accepted principle of statutory interpretation that such an expedient is to be avoided.
The fact that other employees guilty of similar misconduct [illegal walkout] were not dismissed is not germane to issue except with respect to length of disqualification. Even if claimant chosen to be made an example of, misconduct was a partial cause of dismissal and is enough.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
labour dispute |
illegal walkout |
|
Summary:
The misconduct referred to was claimant's involvement in illegal walkouts and her involvement was far in excess of that of other employees. Accordingly, claimant was guilty of some misconduct and this was the reason for dismissal. Her case clearly fallsunder s.41.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
rules of construction |
each word counts |
|
Summary:
For claimant's submission to prevail, the word "only" or a similar word would have to be read into ss.41(1). It is a well accepted principle of statutory interpretation that such an expedient is to be avoided, if at all possible.
