Summary of Issue: Unacceptable Behavior

Decision 76427A Full Text of Decision 76427A

The claimant says he was a supervisor and had to work on Sunday. The employer denied that the claimant was a supervisor. In addition the claimant had been accused of sexual harassment of a female employee, which he denied. The commission’s position is that he claimant breached the employer’s rules of conduct by entering the building in question without authorization on a day when he was not scheduled to work. The Board finds that the claimant knew or should have been familiar with the rules and procedures and that he had signed the Staff Rules of Conduct. For the above reasons, the Board finds that the claimant acted in a wilful manner and that his actions constitute misconduct. The Appeal by the claimant is dismissed by the Umpire.

Decision 76281 Full Text of Decision 76281

The Board found that the claimant, who suffered from substance abuse, called his employer at 4:30 in the morning. This phone call was made in a rambling, incoherent nature. This had not been the first of such phone calls made by the claimant and he was told to stop making inappropriate phone calls to employees. Compulsive gambling, drug addiction and alcoholism cannot be excuses for an addicted person to lose a job. Misconduct is when the act is willful or so reckless as to approach willfulness. The claimant’s appeal is denied by the Umpire.

Decision 75635 Full Text of Decision 75635

The Commission determined that the claimant had lost his employment due to his own misconduct and imposed an indefinite disqualification. The claimant had been dismissed for violating a company rule regarding horseplay at work during which a co-worker was injured. The employer had a zero tolerance policy in regard to horseplay on the work site and banned the claimant for 90 days and consequently dismissed him. The BOR reviewed the evidence and found that the claimant was breaching a company rule which was subject to dismissal for any breach. The Board also noted that the claimant was aware of the company's policy as he had attended a site safety orientation session. The laimant's appeal is dismissed by the Umpire.

Decision 72420 Full Text of Decision 72420

The claimant was employed as a security guard at a Casino and dismissed from his duties for a violation of the company policy. The claimant was already listed on a "last chance" agreement in relation to a violation of the employer's policy. In the second violation during his probation period, he was found in the act of completing a crossword puzzle while on duty. The Board found the claimant's decision to complete a crossword puzzle, while on duty, a deliberate violation of company policy constituting misconduct.

Decision 71281 Full Text of Decision 71281

The claimant was employed part time as a school bus driver. A young pupil on his bus was misbehaving. At one of the stops the claimant asked the mother of a child who was boarding the bus if she knew the misbehaving boy. She did. The claimant asked her to take the boy and call his mother. The woman agreed and the claimant left the boy with her. He did not report his action to the school. The boy's mother complained. The employer's policy clearly stated that a passenger might not be put off the bus for disciplinary reasons and should never be discharged at any point other than his or her designated stop without instructions from the dispatcher. There is no doubt that the conduct alleged to be misconduct was the discharge of a pupil at an unauthorized point. That was in violation of the employer's policy and it led to the claimant's dismissal. The Commission's appeal is allowed.

Decision 75734 Full Text of Decision 75734

The claimant was dismissed after her involvement in a fight with a co-worker, this being the second incident involving the two. The claimant and her co-worker had been warned and knew that the employer had a zero tolerance policy for this type of incident. The co-worker was also dismissed as a result of these incidents. The Commission concluded that the claimant' s engagement in a physical altercation with her co-worker on company property after a first reprimand for the same reasons constituted a breach of the employer' s zero tolerance policy forming part of the employment contract and resulted in a misconduct justifying the dismissal. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed.

Decision 74556 Full Text of Decision 74556

The claimant was hired to work with a roofing company in the spring of 2009. While the claimant worked there, he was subject to some harassment by fellow employees concerning his previous life. As a result of this teasing by other employees, the claimant became upset and as a result assaulted another employee while they were on a roof of a building. The employer fired the claimant immediately because of safety concerns. When the claimant applied for e.i. he did not disclose that he was dismissed from his job. He explained that he only worked there temporarily. The claimant received benefits in the amount of $18,585. When this was discovered the Commission determined that the claimant was not entitled to benefits as he had made a false and misleading statement, he did not disclose that he had been fired for misconduct concerning the assault. The appeal by the commission is allowed.

Decision 73319 Full Text of Decision 73319

The Commission determined that the claimant had lost her employment due to her own misconduct. The reason given by the employer for dismissing the claimant was that she had physically assaulted a co-worker by biting her. The evidence was that the co-worker in question was giving the claimant advice on how to do her job. The claimant did not appreciate this and a verbal argument ensued. In her letter of appeal to the Umpire, the claimant denied saying negative things about her co-worker. She acknowledged that during an argument with a co-worker, this person was putting her hand in her face. When the co-worker refused to remove her hand, the claimant closed her eyes and bit her. It has been well established in the jurisprudence that violent or threatening behaviour in the workplace towards the employer or co-workers constitutes misconduct warranting a dismissal and a disqualification from receiving benefits. The appeal by the claimant is denied.

Decision 71482 Full Text of Decision 71482

The claimant, employed as a bus driver by a School Board, was dismissed for what the School Board considered inappropriate behaviour which was deemed to be misconduct. The incident in question involved the claimant stopping her bus, to confront the driver of a car that was following her and whom she considered was stalking her. This incident was considered to be misconduct while driving the school bus, even though no students were aboard at the time. Actions of talking on a cell phone while driving and actions of stopping a school bus to confront an individual are wilful, deliberate and reckless. The claimant's appeal is dismissed.

Decision 76740 Full Text of Decision 76740

The claimant filed a benefit claim after being dismissed by his employer. The Commission determined that the claimant was dismissed because of his misconduct. The employer complained that the claimant behaved so aggressively towards other employees that the claimant had to ensure that the claimant took his lunch break at a different time than the other employees. The employer also described the claimant's disrespectful attitude towards the residents of the residence where he worked. The employer had received complaints from the residents. The employer gave the claimant many verbal warnings. The BOR reviewed the evidence and found that the evidence of misconduct was established. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed by the Umpire.

Decision 75713 Full Text of Decision 75713

The claimant, a security guard, was dismissed according to his employer because he was accused of sexual harassment while the claimant claims his dismissal was due to disagreement with his employer concerning wage reductions. The Commission refused to pay the claimant benefits since it concluded that he had been dismissed due to his misconduct. The appeal before the Umpire is dismissed.

Decision 72931 Full Text of Decision 72931

The claimant filed an initial claim for benefits effective June 8, 2008. The Commission then found that the claimant lost his employment because of his own misconduct. The employer dismissed the claimant because he admitted that he was guilty of sexual assault against a minor. The claimant was a fire chief, some of his duties involved acting as a crossing guard, teaching fire prevention in schools and patrolling the streets of the community at night. The claimant could no longer carry out a number of his responsibilities because of the court order prohibiting him from being in the presence of minors without a third party present. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed by the Umpire.

Decision A0176.09 Full Text of Decision A0176.09

The Claimant was dismissed for misconduct after being caught sleeping during work hours, despite the explanation that he was sleeping for health reasons. The BOR found that there was no misconduct and the Umpire concluded that the BOR had acted within its mandate. The FCA, on the other hand, held that the determination of whether a dismissal is justified, or not, does not lie with the BOR or the Umpire, but that the determination of whether an act or an omission constitutes misconduct does. The FCA added that the Umpire should have ensured that the BOR had correctly applied the Mishibinijima test in determining misconduct.

Decision A0051.10 Full Text of Decision A0051.10

The claimant lost his employment because he had sold smuggled cigarettes to a colleague and his manager, while in his employer's parking lot, wearing his employer's uniform. The employer had a policy which prohibited employees from selling smuggled cigarettes. The BOR held that the claimant's actions did not constitute misconduct. The Umpire upheld the BOR's decision and stated that the file contained no evidence of criminal accusation or conviction in relation to the illegal action. The FCA held that the absence of a complaint or a criminal conviction was not relevant to the issue and reiterated the principle that the BOR does not have to judge the severity of a disciplinary measure, but, rather, should decide whether the action in question constitutes misconduct.

Decision 77536 Full Text of Decision 77536

The employer terminated the claimant's employment because the claimant threatened another employee. An investigation was conducted and the claimant was then dismissed. The employer stated that, each time an employee receives a disciplinary reprimand, they are given a certain number of demerit points. When a employee reaches 60 points, he or she is dismissed. In the claimant's case, the incident in question put him at the 60-point mark but he would have been dismissed in any case because the employer has a zero-tolerance policy for threats and harassment in the workplace. An employer cannot take threats lightly and the claimant's behaviour constitutes misconduct within the meaning of the Act. The Commission therefore imposed an indefinite disqualification on the claimant under section 30(1) of the Act. The BOR upheld the Commission's decision to the effect that the claimant's behaviour, namely, the fact that the threatened someone, constituted misconduct within the meaning of the Act because the claimant had acted wilfully and knowingly. Ths claimant's appeal is dismissed by the Umpire.