Decision A0558.12
Full Text of Decision A0558.12
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
absences from work |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant was dismissed on November 11, 2011. He acknowledged that he got up late on the morning of November 8, 2011, because his alarm clock did not ring. He also acknowledged that he did not notify his employer of his absence because the boat on which he was working had left and he had hoped that his absence would go unnoticed. He had already received several written warnings from his employer, namely, for absenteeism, recurring tardiness and his drug use problem. He had also been subject to disciplinary measures. The Commission informed the claimant that he had lost his employment by reason of his own misconduct. The FCA explained that the BOR had to determine whether the claimant had conducted himself so carelessly that he could not have been unaware that his absence could result in dismissal. The FCA determined that the BOR and the Umpire failed to consider the entire record, including the claimant’s absences and recurring tardiness, in addition to his carelessness, which rendered their decisions unreasonable.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
lateness |
|
|
Decision A0440.10
Full Text of Decision A0440.10
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
absences from work |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant was dismissed because of his absenteeism. He had received repeated warnings regarding his numerous unjustified absences from work. At the hearing before the BOR, the claimant filed a medical certificate indicating a diagnosis of a major depression and a return-to-work date of December 1, 2008. The evidence in the docket showed that the claimant had returned to work on December 5, 2008 and had been dismissed following absences that occurred in January 2009. When analyzing the evidence in the docket, the FCA explained that there was no evidence or testimony indicating that, after the claimant returned to work in December 2008, he was again suffering from the major depression on which the Board of Referees based its decision. The FCA determined that the Board of Referees had given too much scope to the medical certificate. The FCA concluded that the BOR could not, with absolutely no proof, find that the claimant had not lost his employment by reason of his own misconduct within the meaning of the Act.
Decision 74770
Full Text of Decision 74770
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
absences from work |
|
|
Summary:
The Commission determined that the claimant lost his employment due to his misconduct. Also, that it cannot pay him benefits from March 25, 2009 to March 30, 2009 because he was in a prison and cannot pay sickness from March 25 and March 26, 2009 because he had not proven that he would be available for work if he were not sick. According to the employer, the claimant was dismissed because he was in violation of two conditions of his Last Chance Agreement with the company namely being incarcerated and unavailable for work. The claimant was absent with a doctor's note for March 25 and 26, he not available for work on March 29 and 30, could have returned to work on March 31, but he only contacted the employer on April 1st. The claimant’s appeal is dismissed by the Umpire.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
own misconduct |
|
|
| availability for work |
Not available and not otherwise available |
|
|
Decision A0200.09
Full Text of Decision A0200.09
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
absences from work |
|
|
Summary:
The Claimant was terminated from his employment for leaving his workplace following technical problems with work equipment. Prior to leaving, the claimant left a message to his employer stating that he was returning home because he was angry and was not feeling well. The Commission took the position that the claimant had lost his employment by reason of his misconduct. Both the BOR and the Umpire held that the claimant's conduct did not constitute a serious breach which would lead him to believe that he could be dismissed. The FCA reiterated that the BOR must only determine if the claimant's conduct constitutes misconduct pursuant to the EIA and not whether the severity of the disciplinary action is justified. The FCA held that the claimant's conduct was deliberate, that he should have known that his conduct could lead to serious disciplinary action and that the fact that the claimant expected a lesser disciplinary action is irrelevant. The FCA concluded that the BOR exceeded its jurisdiction by ruling on whether the termination was justified and that the Umpire should have intervened to correct this error.
Decision A0416.08
Full Text of Decision A0416.08
summary
| 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.
Decision 71230
Full Text of Decision 71230
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
absences from work |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant had been employed by a company for over ten years. On the weekend of July 21-22, 2007 he was arrested for an alleged assault and was not released from custody until late in the afternoon of Monday, July 23. The next day the employer dismissed him. The employer stated they dismissed the claimant for not being able to report to work because he was incarcerated. This action resulted in his dismissal, as the incident and incarceration prevented him from fulfilling his obligation to be at work. This conduct, which is clearly misconduct, caused his loss of employment. An employee's conduct, on or off the job, that lands him in trouble with the law and results in his being deprived of his liberty, puts him in a situation where he cannot report for work. It is not the alleged offence but rather the inability to report for work that constitutes misconduct. The appeal is dismissed.
Decision 66381A
Full Text of Decision 66381A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
absences from work |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant was dismissed for breaching the employer's policy whereby employees were not allowed to leave the work premises during their lunch breaks. This policy was put in place for reasons of security and fairness. The claimant was aware of the policy and had been warned previously that he could not leave during his lunch breaks. It is well established in the jurisprudence that a disregard by a claimant of a legitimate and reasonable directive issue by an employer and of which the claimant is aware constitutes misconduct pursuant to Employment Insurance Act.
Decision 69219
Full Text of Decision 69219
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
absences from work |
|
|
Summary:
The uncontested evidence established that the claimant was dismissed because he did not provide a doctor's certificate as required by his collective agreement. He received numerous warnings and disciplinary measures to this effect and the last warning clearly indicated that any further offence would result in his dismissal.
Decision A-0030.04
Full Text of Decision A-0030.04
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
absences from work |
|
|
Summary:
The Commission disqualified the claimant for loosing his employment due to misconduct because of absenteeism and lateness. The Court found that there was evidence of the claimant's disability due to an addiction to alcohol and determined that the Umpire had erred in making findings without this evidence. See subsequent decision of the Federal Court of Appeal, A-85-06, which allowed the Commission's appeal.
Decision A-0338.03
Full Text of Decision A-0338.03
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
absences from work |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant's employment was terminated because he was no longer in a position to fulfill an essential condition of his employment contract - he could not come to work because he was imprisonned.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
jail sentence |
|
Decision 50148
Full Text of Decision 50148
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
absences from work |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant took holidays despite employer's refusal for reason of work. Upon his return, claimant dismissed from his employment. Dismissal subjectively perceived by the claimant as both unfair and unjust. Ruled by Umpire that taking an unauthorized leave once the employer has denied the leave is misconduct. An employee cannot overrule his/her employer in the proper functioning of its company.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
unexcused absences from work |
|
|
Decision 41470
Full Text of Decision 41470
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
absences from work |
|
|
Summary:
Dismissed for showing up late for work or not showing up at all with no notice. Umpire found that the claimant’s behaviour could not be considered as voluntary and deliberate within the meaning of the Tucker decision A-0381.85, since the medical report clearly showed that his behaviour was not voluntary but caused by his illness, alcoholism. Therefore, he did not lose his employment because of his own misconduct within the meaning of the Act.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
alcohol, drugs and gambling |
|
|
| misconduct |
lateness |
|
|
Decision 38774
Full Text of Decision 38774
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
absences from work |
|
|
Summary:
Dismissed for failing on 3 occasions to report for work. Umpire found that the BOR erred in law because it didn't examine the evidence to determine the reason in each instance for the claimant's failure to report for work and to further determine whether having regard thereto, the mental element of willfulness was present on each occasion. BOR simply applied the definition of misconduct from Tucker to conclude that absence from work on 3 occasions constituted misconduct without further analysis. Absence from work may be cause for dismissal but cause for dismissal does not equate with misconduct.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of facts |
|
Decision A-0574.96
Full Text of Decision A-0574.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
absences from work |
|
|
Summary:
Her employer being away on vacation, the claimant refused work that the accountant asked her to do, alleging that her employer had not indicated such work to her. An altercation ensued, and the next day, the claimant refused to return to work, wishing to await her employer’s return. The Umpire upheld the decision that the claimant had not acted like a prudent person and should have been more conciliating. Application for judicial review was summarily dismissed by the FCA.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
insubordination |
|
|
| misconduct |
refusal to obey orders |
|
|
Decision 36728
Full Text of Decision 36728
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
absences from work |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant left for vacation on 2-2-95 and scheduled to return on 25-2-95. Claimant's wife contacted the employer to let him know that he would be delayed in his return. BOR found misconduct because the employer had to replace him during his absence. Held that it was apparent that the claimant had every intention of returning to his job. BOR's conclusion that claimant's conduct constituted misconduct is based on an irrelevant consideration.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
definition |
|
|
Decision 35498
Full Text of Decision 35498
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
absences from work |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant was told to report his periods of absence and provide a medical certificate for any period of absence of 8 hours or more. Continued to absent himself without justifying his behaviour. Non-compliance with an instruction, of which the employee is aware, and knowing that it can lead to dismissal, constitutes misconduct.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
merit of dismissal |
|
|
| misconduct |
breach of rules |
|
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of facts |
|
Decision A-0647.94
Full Text of Decision A-0647.94
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
absences from work |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant relieved of his duties having had to leave work on 2 occasions in order to attend a Court proceeding. Was unable to notify his superiors. Referring to Namaro (A-834-82), the umpire saw no misconduct. The Federal Court of Appeal rejected the Commission's appeal.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
questions to examine |
|
|
Decision 25713
Full Text of Decision 25713
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
absences from work |
|
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0647.94
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
questions to examine |
|
|
Decision 28772
Full Text of Decision 28772
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
absences from work |
|
|
Summary:
Deliberately taking a day off contrary to instructions can hardly be said to be minor instances of misconduct. The jurisprudence supports a finding of misconduct when an employee takes time off when the leave has been denied. He was aware that he was not to take the day off but wilfully did so.
Decision 27761
Full Text of Decision 27761
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
absences from work |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant's continued lateness after receiving a memo and her absence from work on 14-11-91, without apparent excuse and after having received 2 verbal warnings are more than sufficient to constitute reckless conduct, thereby satisfying the mens rea requirements for misconduct as per TUCKER.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
lateness |
|
|
Decision 26713
Full Text of Decision 26713
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
absences from work |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant's excuse for not returning to work is a work-related injury. In this day and age it is inconceivable that one could not have access to a telephone to make a call to one's employer to advise of the reason for his intended absence from work.
Decision 22641
Full Text of Decision 22641
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
absences from work |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant was aware of his employer's practice in regard to notice of an absence from work, and had a duty to notify the employer himself of his intention to be absent from work because of his father's illness. The fact that he tried to transmit his message through a fellow worker does not suffice.
The case law has frequently reiterated that employees who lose their employment for having neglected to contact their employer, in order to notify the employer that they will be unable to report for work, lose their job through their own misconduct.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
negligence |
|
|
Decision 22273
Full Text of Decision 22273
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
absences from work |
|
|
Summary:
Although it was found in CUB_10733 that claimant in that case lost his job "through his own fault", this does not mean that the Umpire set a hard and fast rule for all subsequent cases in which an employee is absent from work for one day without notice and is dismissed for that reason.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
real reason for dismissal |
|
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
statement of facts required |
|
Decision 22052
Full Text of Decision 22052
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
absences from work |
|
|
Summary:
Job requiring overtime. Claimant and co-worker were to make arrangements amongst themselves as to the schedule. The Board found that it was claimant's responsibility to cover the shift in question before making hunting plans. The Manitoba Act does not preclude express agreements as to overtime work.
Decision 20993
Full Text of Decision 20993
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
absences from work |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant was faced with a very unfortunate situation. She lived far away from her place of work, did not drive a car, had no telephone and was constantly faced with problems in regards to the care of her children. These were circumstances beyond control. No wilful behaviour.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
definition |
|
|
Decision 20084
Full Text of Decision 20084
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
absences from work |
|
|
Summary:
Absenteeism allegedly due to transportation difficulties. There was no dispute over the fact that he had been absent from work for 2 weeks during which time he never called in or made contact with the employer. These facts unequivocally lead to the conclusion of misconduct.
Decision 18712
Full Text of Decision 18712
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
absences from work |
|
|
Summary:
Left work at noon on Friday due to sickness and advised employer accordingly. Did not return on Monday or Tuesday. Still sick. Did not phone employer. Dismissed by phone Tuesday evening. It was her obligation to inform her employer. Disqualification reduced from 6 to 1 week.
Decision 16197
Full Text of Decision 16197
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
absences from work |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant, unable to report to work, called his employer to advise of his pending absence. Unfortunately, the message, taken by a fellow employee, was never passed on to the employer. Nothing reprehensible in claimant's behaviour which would amount to misconduct.
Decision 16169
Full Text of Decision 16169
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
absences from work |
|
|
Summary:
Dismissed for being absent 5 days. Had fellow employee advised she would be absent a couple of days to attend wedding. Then entered hospital. Reinstated 2 months later without back-pay. Not sufficiently diligent in notifying company. Disqualification reduced from 6 to 2 weeks.
Decision 15817
Full Text of Decision 15817
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
absences from work |
|
|
Summary:
Arrangement made with an employer and Correctional Centre whereby clt allowed to work during the day and return to Centre to serve his sentence at night. Clt left Centre during the day but failed to report for work. 6-week disqualification.
Decision 15267
Full Text of Decision 15267
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
absences from work |
|
|
Summary:
Clt advised employer when hired he had a number of court appearances coming up due to marital and other difficulties. Fired after 2 months as co. could no longer tolerate him being absent. No error by Board. However 6-week disq. is harsh and I reduce itto 3 weeks.
Decision 15243
Full Text of Decision 15243
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
absences from work |
|
|
Summary:
As a result of family problems, the insured person suffered from depression and absented himself without notice. The Board reduced the disentitlement to 1 week. He cannot justify the fact that nobody informed the employer. I agree that there was misconduct but it does not merit a 6-week penalty.
Decision 15255
Full Text of Decision 15255
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
absences from work |
|
|
Summary:
Clt worked evening shift. She decided to take a course 1 night a week. She was sure time off would not be given. She gave another reason. Employer found out real reason and fired her. Disq. 4 weeks. Arbitration turned dismissal into 3-month suspension. 9 years' service.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dishonesty |
|
|
Decision 15189
Full Text of Decision 15189
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
absences from work |
|
|
Summary:
As expected, claimant notified employer of his illness within 3 days. What was expected thereafter and what claimant did is not clear. History of absences due to back problem. No phone at home due to recent move. Misconduct not proven.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
| misconduct |
definition |
|
|
Decision 14687
Full Text of Decision 14687
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
absences from work |
|
|
Summary:
Unable to conclude Board made an error under 95(c). It concluded that although some of claimant's absences may have had some justification in his own mind, they were not acceptable from standpoint of employer who should reasonably be able to expect employees be present.
Decision 14368
Full Text of Decision 14368
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
absences from work |
|
|
Summary:
Flight attendant who was refused leave of absence to attend university. He subsequently sought to obtain this leave indirectly by taking medical leave. Board found absences not fully explained. Factual case.
Decision 14130
Full Text of Decision 14130
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
absences from work |
|
|
Summary:
Worked days all the time. Changed to night shifts due to having been a striker. Advised employer and union of transportation problems at night. Did not report for 3 nights. Dismissal is really forced resignation. No evidence that loss due to misconduct.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
restrictions |
labour market information |
|
Decision 13453
Full Text of Decision 13453
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
absences from work |
|
|
Summary:
Notified employer 6 weeks in advance that he was taking 3 weeks leave without pay. He was then informed in writing that his request had been refused. Took leave nonetheless. "I believe that board was generous in reducing disqualification to 3 weeks."
Decision 12621
Full Text of Decision 12621
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
absences from work |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant contacted another employee and requested that he advise the employer that the claimant would not be able to work as scheduled. The employer was able to make arrangements and was not left short staffed. Disqualification reduced to 4 weeks.
Due to financial circumstances, he did not show up for work on first scheduled shift following a 3-week vacation. It was his responsibility to afford himself sufficient time to travel. A responsible employee would have contacted the employer personally on his first day back.
Decision 12047
Full Text of Decision 12047
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
absences from work |
|
|
Summary:
Clear that repeated absences may be considered to be misconduct, unless attributable to accident on job or illness.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
accidents |
|
|
Decision 11410
Full Text of Decision 11410
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
absences from work |
|
|
Summary:
Disqualification reduced to 3 weeks as it was part-time employment. Maximum disqualification limited to most extreme cases. While it was irresponsible of claimant to absent himself as he did, it was to find full-time employment, so disqualification further reduced to 2 weeks.
Nothing to indicate any error of law. Claimant failed to report for one of his shifts and did not call. As a result he was replaced and when he returned there was simply no opening for him. Retroactive ruling.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
time limitation for recovery |
|
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
length |
|
| reconsideration of claim |
factual cases |
retroactive disqualification |
|
Decision 11219
Full Text of Decision 11219
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
absences from work |
|
|
Summary:
Insured absent one day to participate in strike picket, something prohibited by collective agreement between union and employer. 6 week disqualification upheld.
Decision 10733
Full Text of Decision 10733
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
absences from work |
|
|
Summary:
Went to Grey Cup game in Vancouver on Sunday. Scheduled to report for work Tuesday. Did not arrive in Toronto until 10 a.m. and found a robbery had taken place at home. Neglect to advise employer on Tuesday indicates fault on his part. Disqualification reduced to 3 weeks.
Decision 72443
Full Text of Decision 72443
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
absences from work |
Alchoholism |
|
Summary:
The claimant was dismissed on February 29th, 2008 because the absences were frequent, wilful, deliberate and had a negative affect on the employer-employee relationship. Claimant's conduct amounted to misconduct justifying his dismissal. The claimant gave his cocaine addiction as the reason for his absenteeism and he contends that his alcohol and drug addiction is an illness and that his dismissal was wrongful and because of his illness he was not guilty of misconduct. The use of alcohol and drugs is a wilful act, which is deliberately self-inflicted and cannot be relied upon to avoid a finding of misconduct. The appeal is dismissed by the Umpire.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
alcohol, drugs and gambling |
|
|
Decision A0062.08
Full Text of Decision A0062.08
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
absences from work |
Alchoholism |
|
Summary:
The issue was whether the Umpire erred in holding that the claimant's conduct was a symptom of his alcoholism and not wilful misconduct. The FCA stated that under section 30 of the EIA, misconduct has been defined as conduct that is wilful, meaning conscious, deliberate or intentional. The FCA added that in cases of alcoholism related misconduct, a claimant will not be disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits if both the alcoholism and the involuntariness of the conduct in question are established. The FCA noted that there was no medical evidence relating to the claimant's alcoholism or whether the circumstances in which he started to drink effectively made his consumption of alcohol involuntary.
Decision 71841
Full Text of Decision 71841
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
absences from work |
Alchoholism |
|
Summary:
The reasons given by the employer for dismissing the claimant were his problems of absenteeism and showing up for work intoxicated. The final incident was when the claimant showed up for work so intoxicated that the security personnel had to escort him out of the building and send him home by taxi. There had been other instances where the claimant had not shown up for work for up to five days without calling. In his notice of appeal, the claimant denied showing up for work intoxicated or having missed work without reason. At the hearing, he acknowledged that he might have gone to his place of employment while drunk but that he was not working that day. I note that in his application for benefits the claimant had stated that he had been dismissed because of his absenteeism. The Board concluded that this constituted misconduct pursuant to the EIA. The employer had provided dates on which the claimant had showed up for work intoxicated. This had been witnessed by several employees. The claimant did not present any evidence to contradict the employer's evidence. The claimant did not establish that the BOR erred in its decision. The appeal is dismissed.
Decision A0085.06
Full Text of Decision A0085.06
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
absences from work |
Alcoholism |
|
Summary:
The Court re-affirmed a number of past Court cases, in particular the principle that there will be misconduct where the claimant knew or ought to have known that their conduct was such as to impair the performance of the duties owed to their employer and that, as a result, dismissal was a real possibility. The Court also cited a number of past rulings to the effect that a claimant's problem with alcohol cannot allow the claimant to escape the conclusion that misconduct was the cause of the dismissal. The Court said there was insufficient evidence to support a conclusion that the claimant's conduct was not wilfull because of his alcoholism. The Court said that there can be no disputing 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 the employer that such failure will result in dismissal. The Supreme Court on September 27, 2007 dismissed the claimant's application for leave to appeal.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
Charter |
|
|
