Summary of Issue: Credibility

Decision 76247 Full Text of Decision 76247

The claimant appeals from the determination given by a BOR, which allowed the employer's appeal from the Commission's decision that the acts of which the employer accused the claimant did not show misconduct on his part. The Commission had accepted the claim for benefits by the claimant. The employer suspended the claimant for 10 working days following a harassment complaint and an administrative investigation. The Commission asked the employer to provide information from the claimant’s file, as it could not make a finding of misconduct based merely on the allegation in the letter of suspension. The employer refused, saying that the case involved harassment. The employer also said that it would not disclose anything about its investigation into the facts and complaints. The claimant flatly denied the employer’s allegations, saying that he never harassed or bullied any other employees or directed foul language at them. The Commission gave the claimant the benefit of doubt, as the evidence was equally balanced on both sides (section 49 of the Employment Insurance Act). The appeal by the claimant is allowed by the Umpire.

Decision A0016.10 Full Text of Decision A0016.10

The claimant requested sick benefits for the period between May 7 and July 1, 2006. She reported to the Commission that she received no earnings during this period. During its investigation, the Commission received pay statements from her employer indicating that the claimant returned to work on May 30, 2006. The Commission concluded that she had been overpaid benefits and that she knowingly made false or misleading representations. It assessed her with a penalty of $1005. The FCA stated that the BOR adequately acknowledged the evidence against the claimant. It specifically referred to the employer's pay slips and held that they were "inconsistent and shoddy." The Board noted that the employer's declaration was inconsistent with the evidence in the actual pay stubs and found the claimant's evidence to be more consistent. The FCA allowed the application stating that the BOR is better placed than the Umpire and FCA to weigh evidence and assess credibility.

Decision 72264 Full Text of Decision 72264

The claimant filed an initial benefit claim, effective February 20, 2005, after he stopped working for a granite company. He then worked for the same employer during the weeks of March 7 to September 4, 2005 and the week of January 29, 2006. An investigation showed that he did not report his earnings from employment while he was receiving benefits. The claimant indicated that he suspected his ex-partner of making false representations without his knowledge and that he was innocent. The claimant had opened a joint account with a woman; two debit cards were issued so she could carry out transactions in the joint account under the claimant's signature. The woman denied everything and said that she did not have an ATM card and the claimant never gave her his access code and never asked her to complete his reports. The claimant was the victim of his ex-partner's actions. The Commission's appeal is allowed.