Decision T649.16
Full Text of Decision T649.16
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
breaches of company policy |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant operated a crane and fainted on the worksite. As part of his check-up a drug test was administered finding his marijuana level in his blood above the acceptable limit. As per the zero tolerance policy of the employer, his employment was terminated. The Commission imposed a disqualification as he lost his job as a result of misconduct. The SST-General Division upheld the disqualification. The Appeal Division denied leave to appeal as the Applicant failed to identify an error in the General Division decision. It lays out in no uncertain terms that the focus is on the conduct of the employee and not the employer. The Court dismissed the judicial review.
Decision A0385.11
Full Text of Decision A0385.11
summary
| 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.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
justification |
others misconduct themselves |
|
Decision 77322
Full Text of Decision 77322
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
breaches of company policy |
|
|
Summary:
The Commission denied the claimant benefits because it was of the opinion that he had lost his job as a result of misconduct within the meaning of sections 29 and 30 of the EI Act. The claimant, a mortgage manager for a bank, was dismissed because the Bank after an investigation concluded that the claimant had acted contrary to the Bank’s conduct policy by lending his own funds to a customer. The Bank considered that the claimant had placed himself in a conflict of interest situation. The appeal by the claimant was dismissed by the Umpire.
Decision 76637
Full Text of Decision 76637
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
breaches of company policy |
|
|
Summary:
According to the claimant, her employer dismissed her because there was a breach of trust as a result of her violating procedures. The employer alleged that the claimant was dismissed because she overruled a manager's decision in his absence. The Commission found that the claimant lost her employment by reason of her own misconduct. A claimant's appeal to the BOR was allowed and the employer is now appealing to the Umpire. The Board is of the opinion that the claimant did not violate the rules of the Caisse as an employee carrying out her work duties. According to the Umpire, there is nothing in the evidence to support the ground for appeal. The BOR was free to decide as it did, and its decision was reasonable and based on the evidence. A BOR is the trier of fact and there is no reason to intervene when a fact-based decision is involved, unless the decision is unreasonable. The employer's appeal to the Umpire is dismissed.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
breach of rules |
|
|
Decision 76397
Full Text of Decision 76397
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
breaches of company policy |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant was working at a remote camp in Alberta where he was banned and dismissed. A security personnel retained by his employer searched the room he occupied as well as his personal belongings and discovered a bottle of liquor. At the beginning of his stay at the camp the claimant had signed a document that stated: this was a Dry Camp – the consumption or possession of alcohol/ unlawful drugs is not acceptable in or around camp and the company reserved the right to conduct drug and alcohol searches of the camp area at any time. The Board of Referees concludes that the claimant lost his job because of his own misconduct. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed by the Umpire.
Decision 76320
Full Text of Decision 76320
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
breaches of company policy |
|
|
Summary:
Misconduct driving permit,
misconduct breaches of company policy,
misconduct alcohol, drugs and gambling
The claimant was arrested in the State of Michigan for driving under the influence of alcohol and for possession of alcohol in a commercial vehicle. The claimant admitted that he was aware of the policy of his employer with respect to alcohol. This policy required that drivers should abstain from alcohol for a period of 8 hours before driving and no alcohol was tolerated on board vehicles except alcohol which would be included in the load to be delivered. The claimant submitted that his action was not willful since he suffers from alcoholism. The respondent's employment was terminated on June 2, 2006 because he had failed to report to work or to contact his employer from June 3, 2006 to June 13, 2006. The respondent had gone on a drinking binge and admitted himself into a detox program. The employer had assumed that the respondent had abandoned his employment but was willing to discuss the possibility of his reinstatement once the respondent had received a clean bill of health. Unfortunately, several health issues deprived the respondent of that opportunity. The appeal is dismissed by the Umpire.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
driving permit |
|
|
| misconduct |
alcohol, drugs and gambling |
|
|
Decision 76291
Full Text of Decision 76291
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
breaches of company policy |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant was working under a collective bargaining agreement. In that agreement, it was considered that a person who did not call in if they were missing work could be terminated. In this case, the claimant did not call in on June 8, 9 and 10, 2009. Apparently the claimant had been ill the previous week for Thursday and Friday and called in at that time. The reason given by the claimant for not calling in on Monday was that he was stressed and didn't think he had to call in. The claimant did not provide a doctor's note for June 8, 9 and 10. The Board of Referees determined that the claimant was aware of the company's police concerning absenteeism and knew that this could cause him to be dismissed. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
unexcused absences from work |
|
|
Decision 76343
Full Text of Decision 76343
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
breaches of company policy |
|
|
Summary:
In his application for benefits, the claimant stated that he had been dismissed. The employer indicated that the claimant had been giving preferential treatment when issuing passports to individuals he knew without applying the approved practices and procedures and without charging the associated fees. The claimant added that the employer had no policy in regard to such conduct. The Commission repeatedly attempted to obtain a copy of the employer’s investigation report and its policy in regard to the preferential treatment given to applicants but the employer had never provided. The Board reviewed the evidence and concluded that the claimant could not have suspected that his behaviour could jeopardize his employment, given that this had been in accordance with a long-standing practice. The appeal by the employer is dismissed by the Umpire.
Decision 76207
Full Text of Decision 76207
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
breaches of company policy |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant was dismissed because of misuse of a company credit card for gasoline purchases to which he denies having used. The employer’s calculated the number of hours that would have to be worked on the week of May 16 for the employee to have used that much gas in the company vehicle. The hours worked were more than double what the claimant indicated were his hours of work for the week. Furthermore, no hours were claimed for Saturday May 22 and 29. The employer finds it plausible that the claimant would have worked overtime hours and not claimed for them. The Board of Referees concluded that the employer’s version of the facts was more credible than the claimant. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed by the Umpire.
Decision 75946
Full Text of Decision 75946
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
breaches of company policy |
|
|
Summary:
The employer advised the Commission that the claimant had violated the company's policy by watching "pornos" on his company computer while at work. An investigation was conducted and it was found that he had adult material on his computer. Employee acknowledges that any breach of this Agreement may result in immediate termination of the employment relationship. There is no doubt that the claimant's actions constituted misconduct which merited dismissal and a denial of benefits. The appeal by the employer’s before the Umpire is allowed.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dereliction of duty |
Abuse of electronic mail (E-Mail) |
|
Decision 75988
Full Text of Decision 75988
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
breaches of company policy |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant was dismissed because the reports of the employer showed an improper use of Internet for personal purposes, while the claimant was aware that such use contravened an employer’s policy restricting the use of Internet for work purposes only. The claimant knew he had accessed Internet sites that were inappropriate and not allowed. He was also aware of the employer’s Internet use policy and the fact that contravening this policy could result in an immediate dismissal. The Commission concluded that the claimant’s actions constituted misconduct within the meaning of the Act. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed by the employer.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dereliction of duty |
Internet misuse |
|
Decision 75824
Full Text of Decision 75824
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
breaches of company policy |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant was dismissed from his employment for alleged business solicitation of clients of his employer for the benefit of his own company. The claimant admitted that he completed work for a client for his own benefit and he referred the client for further work to another company. The business card that the claimant provided to the client listed the claimant's cell phone number. The claimant admitted that he was subcontracting for this latter company. The Board concluded that the conduct of the claimant amounted to misconduct. The "Business Protection Agreement" signed by the claimant clearly stated that ''...breach of this Agreement shall be considered immediate grounds for termination with cause..." The appeal by the claimant is dismissed by the Umpire.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
conflict of interest |
|
|
Decision 75651
Full Text of Decision 75651
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
breaches of company policy |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant had the use of a company computer at work and used its e-mailbox which is used to capture virus e-mails and misaddressed mail to receive and transmit along with other employees, pornographic material. The claimant admitted those facts but stated that he was unaware of the company rules prohibiting those acts. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed by the umpire.
Decision 75734
Full Text of Decision 75734
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
breaches of company policy |
|
|
Summary:
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.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
insubordination |
|
|
| misconduct |
unacceptable behavior |
acts of violence |
|
| misconduct |
violations of contract |
|
|
Decision 75232
Full Text of Decision 75232
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
breaches of company policy |
|
|
Summary:
The employer stated that the claimant was terminated for integrity of records. He was caught forging the signature of a client. He already received a final written warning in April 2007 for misappropriation. The claimant stated that he was not supposed to forge anyone's signature and yet did it anyway because he was under pressure and wanted to cut corners. He did not think he would get fired because it was not an important document. The deliberate action of the claimant, a mortgage specialist, constituted misconduct because it breached the relationship between the employer and employee. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed by the Umpire.
Decision 75635
Full Text of Decision 75635
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
breaches of company policy |
|
|
Summary:
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.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
unacceptable behavior |
|
|
Decision 75086
Full Text of Decision 75086
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
breaches of company policy |
|
|
Summary:
The dismissal by the employer was that the claimant used the company’s computer system inappropriately and sent many emails with sexual content to other employees. He accessed a number of Internet sites with sexual and pornographic content. Such use of the computer system was against the company Code of Conduct. Disciplinary measures were imposed on some fifteen other employees for the same conduct. The claimant acknowledged that he accessed sexual sites somewhat accidentally and not seriously. He also acknowledged that in October 2008, he sent a joke e-mail of an erotic nature to his supervisor. The employer added that the claimant signed an agreement for a one-year suspension. The claimant indicated that he accepted the alleged facts and the decision for a one-year suspension because otherwise he would have been dismissed. The appeal by the Umpire.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dereliction of duty |
Internet misuse |
|
| misconduct |
suspension * |
|
|
Decision 75118
Full Text of Decision 75118
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
breaches of company policy |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant was not laid off with respect to shortage of work. The claimant had advised the employer he had been drinking the night before and didn't wake up until the next afternoon. At that time, he didn't know where his cell phone was or the company vehicle. The claimant had committed a breach of the employer's policy within the meaning of the Act. The BOR found that the claimant knew that it was imperative that he adher to the employer's requests, rules and protocol. His conduct was considered willful, deliberate or so reckless as to approach willfulness and therefore constituted misconduct. The claimant’s appeal is dismissed by the Umpire.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
unexcused absences from work |
|
|
Decision 74884
Full Text of Decision 74884
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
breaches of company policy |
|
|
Summary:
The misconduct is the failure of the claimant to subscribe to certain safety measures required by the employer as part of the Workplace Safety Policy on this Province. The claimant was advised he would be dismissed if he continued to fail to comply. The claimant was told to wear earplugs he did not wish to wear due to moving vehicles on the jobsite. The claimant was aware of his expectations to conform to the policy, since he was on the Joint Health and Safety Committee. The claimant was aware of the progressive discipline procedure, had received a direct verbal warning and should have known that repeated refusals would be cause for dismissal.
Decision 75158
Full Text of Decision 75158
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
breaches of company policy |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant was refused employment insurance benefits on the grounds that he lost his employment due to his own misconduct. The claimant was employed as a casino floor manager. He was not satisfied with the operation of the surveillance cameras and he mentioned this in the presence of staff and a guest. The camera tapes were refused by the employer, and so were the files relative to the incidents held against him when he was dismissed. The issue was not the accuracy of the cameras, but the conduct of the claimant and his discussion in front of staff and patrons; and the breach of a confidentiality agreement. The appeal by the claimant was dismissed by the Umpire.
Decision 74654
Full Text of Decision 74654
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
breaches of company policy |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant was advised that he had been dismissed because his employer accused him of using alcohol and or drugs. The company has a "zero tolerance" policy with regard to alcohol and drugs in order to ensure the safety and security of the vessel. The day before the vessel arrived in Duluth, Min. the Captain warned the crew not to have any liquor on board as the Customs Officers were coming on board. The claimant's room was searched and a ¼ bottle of liquor was found. The claimant admitted to owning it. The claimant was issued a warning and suspension and 2 weeks later was dismissed. The claimant has admitted that he was aware of the policy. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed by the Umpire.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
insubordination |
|
|
Decision 74512
Full Text of Decision 74512
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
breaches of company policy |
|
|
Summary:
The employer told the claimant he was being dismissed for breach of security. Specifically, as a result of other confidentiality concerns, the employer began monitoring Mr. X's emails and concluded he had breached security and confidentiality policies by sending an email with vendor passwords and account information to his home email account. The Commission found the action of sending the email was a wilful or deliberate act that breached company policy. The claimant was aware of and that he had reviewed and understood the policies in the "Employee Handbook - Confidentiality Agreement, Email Users Responsibilities, General Security Policy" on July 11, 2008. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed.
Decision 74557
Full Text of Decision 74557
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
breaches of company policy |
|
|
Summary:
Following a derailment, pursuant to his employer's policy, the claimant was required to submit to a drug test. He contested the employer's right to require such a test but nevertheless submitted to the test. He tested positive for cocaine use. The employer has a zero tolerance policy in regard to drug use. This policy provides that testing positive for drugs while working in subject to dismissal. As a result of his positive drug test, the claimant was dismissed. In his appeal to the Board of Referees, the claimant explained that he had used cocaine three days prior to the derailment while on leave. He argued that there was no evidence that he had been impaired or under the influence of drugs at the time he reported for work and the derailment occurred. He acknowledged that he was aware of the employer's drug policy but had no idea the drugs he has used three days earlier would still be present in his system. The appeal by the commission is allowed.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
substance abuse |
|
|
Decision 71815
Full Text of Decision 71815
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
breaches of company policy |
|
|
Summary:
The uncontested evidence in this case established that the claimant lost his employment due to his failure to respect the terms of his Return to Work Contract. He was under suspension for failing to attend treatment sessions when he drank, had an accident and was charged with impaired driving resulting in the loss of his driver's licence which the claimant acknowledged was required for his employment. It was specified in the Return to Work Contract that breaching any terms of the agreement could result in dismissal. The evidence clearly established that by breaching his Return to Work Contract for failure to attend treatment sessions and by losing his driver's licence, which according to his own evidence was required for his employment, the claimant had lost his employment as a result of his own misconduct. The appeal is allowed.
Decision 71513
Full Text of Decision 71513
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
breaches of company policy |
|
|
Summary:
The Board of Referees had to determine whether the claimant lost his employment as a result of his own misconduct. The misconduct complained of is consuming a can of beer in the employer's warehouse, contrary to company policy. The fact remains, however, the conduct of the claimant was in breach of company policy; the company considered it misconduct and the claimant was dismissed. The claimant does not dispute the existence and his knowledge of the policy and agrees his actions were wrong. As per the Umpire, the consumption of alcohol during company time and on company property constitute misconduct. The claimant stated in his submission that "it was just stupid that I did". The Commission’s appeal is allowed.
Decision 71528
Full Text of Decision 71528
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
breaches of company policy |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant when hired signed a contract which forbid the sale of tobacco to minors and he was present at three staff meetings during which employees were warned by the employer's manager that if any of them were caught selling cigarettes to anyone under the age of 19 the result would be automatic dismissal. The claimant, a youth of 17 years of age, was seen on video selling cigarettes to himself. That act violated a law in the province forbidding the sale of tobacco products to any person under the age of 19 and a federal law which forbids the sale of those products to anyone under 18 years of age. In the province, a retailer is prohibited from selling tobacco to minors and if convicted of selling offence a retailer is subject to a substantial fine. The employer terminated the claimant's employment because he defied the prohibition of the sale. The claimant admitted that he sold cigarettes to himself and that he was aware of the prohibition of selling tobacco to minors. The appeal is dismissed.
Decision 71446
Full Text of Decision 71446
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
breaches of company policy |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant had been employed with a manufacturing company. The reason the claimant was dismissed was that he had received several warnings and had been given suspensions with respect to breaches of company policy. The last incident took place in September of 2007 when the claimant did not lock down a machine prior to repairing it. The claimant agrees that he did not lock it down but he did unplug the machine. The claimant in his notice of appeal stated: «I felt that since I had shut off the power that was okay. I forgot lock-out procedure». In May, a three day suspension for lockout violation, and then in August a termination for lockout violation. The appeal of the claimant dismissed.
Decision 71275
Full Text of Decision 71275
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
breaches of company policy |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant lost his employment because of his own misconduct. He had been working in a bank and made access to his former wife's profile eighteen times while at home and at work, which was apparently against the bank's policy. The Bank's policy, however, was that the claimant should not have access to his former wife's private account. The position of the Commission is that the claimant's dismissal was a direct result of his accessing his former wife's account. That was contrary to his employer's policy. The Commission’s appeal is allowed.
Decision 71281
Full Text of Decision 71281
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
breaches of company policy |
|
|
Summary:
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.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
unacceptable behavior |
|
|
Decision 71350
Full Text of Decision 71350
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
breaches of company policy |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant was employed as an operations manager with an Agency at a call centre. He had been employed from August 8, 2005 until January 4, 2008 when he was dismissed for breach of the employer's policy respecting fraternization between managers and 'direct reports'. The employer's policy said: «Dating, requests for dates, and/or personal relationships between management and subordinates in a direct reporting relationship, or between any employee and client is strictly prohibited». Based on the evidence, the Board finds that the actions of the claimant were deliberate and in violation of company policy, and the conduct in question to be reprehensible because the claimant knew the consequences of his behaviour. The appeal is dismissed.
