Decision A0157.12
Full Text of Decision A0157.12
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
acts of violence |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant was dismissed from his employment for hitting a colleague in the ankle with a metal hook and uttering death threats, according to three witnesses. The Commission found that the claimant’s actions constituted misconduct and imposed a disqualification. The claimant categorically denied having uttered death threats. A majority of the BOR found that the employer’s testimony was more credible. The Umpire found that there was no reason to intervene. In dismissing the application for judicial review, the FCA concluded that it had not been convinced that the Umpire committed an error that would justify the Court’s intervention.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
death threats |
|
|
Decision 76044
Full Text of Decision 76044
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
acts of violence |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant says he voluntarily left his employment. The employer says he dismissed the employee after he had a verbal exchange at work by making death threats with a knife in hand pointed at a fellow employee. He then, repeated verbal threats to the foreperson present at the time. The employer’s decision is based on the employee file, which is replete with incidents reflecting aggressive behaviour and disrespect for your co-workers and employer. The appeal by the Commission is allowed.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
harassment |
|
|
| misconduct |
insubordination |
|
|
Decision 75713
Full Text of Decision 75713
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
acts of violence |
|
|
Summary:
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.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
unacceptable behavior |
sexual assault |
|
Decision 75639
Full Text of Decision 75639
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
acts of violence |
|
|
Summary:
The Commission alleges the claimant triggered his own dismissal as a result of his misconduct. The claimant and a co-employee physically resided on the premises of the employer. The incident did not occur at work, it took place on the employer's premises. The claimant accused the co-worker of stealing food and cigarettes from him. . The claimant assaulted the co-worker with a baseball bat and the co-worker was sent to the hospital. The employer stated he couldn't keep an employee that assaulted another. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed by the Umpire.
Decision 75015
Full Text of Decision 75015
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
acts of violence |
|
|
Summary:
The reason for dismissal by the employer was that the claimant, who had previously been warned several times about his behaviour, had gotten into a shouting match with a customer and had threatened to punch him in the face. The employer recounted many incidents in which the claimant had been involved and which had led to complaints from customers. The employer indicated that among other things, the claimant-a garbage collector-had not been picking up all the garbage cans and that he had been throwing into the truck garbage cans which, in his opinion, did not meet certain criteria. The employer brought complaints from the public to the claimant's attention, he denied all responsibility and responded using coarse language and was even aggressive. The employer feared that the claimant would ultimately assault members of the public and decided to dismiss him after a final incident involving threats of violence. The appeal by the Commission's is allowed and the decision of the Board of Referees is rescinded.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dual reason for dismissal |
|
|
Decision 74501
Full Text of Decision 74501
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
acts of violence |
|
|
Summary:
In his appeal to the BOR, the claimant explained that he had been dismissed following an altercation with a co-worker. The employer stated that one of the claimant's co-workers had accidentally sprayed water on the claimant while spraying down a machine. The employer provided copies of statements from the claimant's co-worker and another employee who had witnessed the incident when the claimant punched the co-worker twice in the face and then wrapped a hose around his neck. The employer had a zero tolerance policy in regard to violence in the workplace and the claimant was dismissed for his aggressive behaviour. The claimant stated that his co-worker had initiated the incident leading to his termination by repeatedly spraying water in his direction. He stated that he had reported this to his supervisor more than once and nothing had been done. When the co-worker continued with his behaviour, the claimant had pushed him. He was of the view that his supervisor's decision to dismiss him was unfair as he was not the one to blame for the incident. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed.
Decision 74006
Full Text of Decision 74006
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
acts of violence |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant had lost his employment as a result of his own misconduct. He explained that a co-worker had taken a piece of equipment from the claimant's work bay and the claimant asked him to take it back. The other employee refused to do so and told the claimant that he was going to "take him outside and kick his ass". The claimant walked away but the other employee followed him. The claimant felt threatened and hit the other employee causing him to fall down. In the case at bar, the claimant was dismissed for assaulting a co-worker. It may well be that the other employee likely started the incident and pursued the claimant who was walking away but the claimant still assaulted this person. It has been well established in the jurisprudence that violent or threatening behaviour in the workplace towards the employer or a co-worker constitutes misconduct warranting a dismissal. The appeal is dismissed.
Decision 72931
Full Text of Decision 72931
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
acts of violence |
|
|
Summary:
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.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
unacceptable behavior |
sexual assault |
|
Decision 70805
Full Text of Decision 70805
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
acts of violence |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant had been dismissed because he had violently assaulted his supervisor and the president of the company to obtain his pay. The claimant asked the Commission to review its decision to disqualify him from benefits in light of his having been acquitted by the Municipal Court of the charges of assault towards his employer which brought about his dismissal. According to the Umpire, it is not necessary to prove the assault beyond a reasonable doubt before the Board of Referees which, basing itself on the evidence at hand, found that the claimant had committed unacceptable acts of assault against his employer. Even though the Municipal Court found that the claimant had not committed a criminal act, the Board of Referees was able to find that the claimant's actions constituted misconduct within the meaning of the Act.
Decision 70442
Full Text of Decision 70442
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
acts of violence |
|
|
Summary:
The employer has a zero-tolerance policy detailing response to threats or incidents of violence in the workplace. The claimant made a verbal threat to "get a gun" with reference to the "Virginia Tech thing". The claimant was aware of the employer's policy and made comments in breach of his employer's policy on treats of violence in the workplace for which he was dismissed.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
improper language |
|
|
Decision A0592.06
Full Text of Decision A0592.06
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
acts of violence |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant was dismissed because of acts (striking the computer with a printer destroying both and using vulgar language in the loud speakers of the factory) which he posed after he was informed by his employer of a very small increase in wages which he found unacceptable and unreasonable. The acts which led to the dismissal were undoubtedly conscious, deliberate and intentional. The fact that the claimant acted on the spur of the moment and that he immediately regretted his actions and apologized to the employer shortly thereafter is of no relevance to whether his conduct constitutes misconduct. In acting as he did, the claimant ought to have known that his conduct was such that it might lead to dismissal. The Court took into account the following decisions: Secours (A-352-94) and Mishibinijima (A-85-06).
Decision 68019
Full Text of Decision 68019
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
acts of violence |
|
|
Summary:
The employer stated that the claimant had a verbal altercation with a co-worker which turned into a physical altercation where the claimant grabbed and pushed down the co-worker who was hurt in the fall. The employer added that it has a zero tolerance for violence in the workplace and that the claimant was aware of this.
Decision 63563
Full Text of Decision 63563
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
acts of violence |
|
|
Summary:
The employer, who has a zero tolerance policy regarding violence, appealed the BOR's ruling reversing the diqualification imposed to the claimant for striking a co-worker who attacked him. The Umpire stated that conduct by an employee which justifies dismissal does not necessarily amount to misconduct within the meaning of the EI Act. Misconduct for dismissal and misconduct to disqualify from benefits are based on differing concepts. The judge concluded that the Board did not err in ruling there was no misconduct within the meaning of section 30(1) of the EI Act.
Decision 40950
Full Text of Decision 40950
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
acts of violence |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant was dismissed because of a fight between him and a fellow employee. Umpire ruled that fighting on the employer's premises is conduct wich need not to be tolerated and is misconduct within the meaning of the legislation.
Decision 40667
Full Text of Decision 40667
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
acts of violence |
|
|
Summary:
Fired because claimant allegedly attacked a co-worker with a steel pipe after an argument. Claimant clearly breached his duty in this case by acting contrary to company policy which prohibited violence at the work place. The prohibited behaviour was the reason for the dismissal and the employer didn't use this incident as an excuse for dismissal. Claimant's conduct constituted misconduct.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
breach of rules |
|
|
Decision 39625
Full Text of Decision 39625
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
acts of violence |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant took a toy gun to his place of employment and threatened a co-employee. Umpire concluded that claimant's conduct was irresponsible to say the least. To utter a threat accompanied by the exhibition of a weapon that leads the person threatened to believe that the person making the threat has the means to carry out the threat is clearly misconduct detrimental to the employer's interests.
Decision 39203
Full Text of Decision 39203
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
acts of violence |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant's conduct in uttering death threats to another employee is misconduct. One cannot characterize it as a remark made carelessly or in jest. It was made in anger and as an expression of temper. It is conduct that an employer cannot tolerate in the workplace.
Decision A-0237.95
Full Text of Decision A-0237.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
acts of violence |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant denied the act of violence. However, the pointing of an open bladed knife with threatening words, whether serious or in jest, is disregard of a standard of behaviour the employer has a right to expect of an employee. That behaviour is manifestly an act of misconduct. Upheld by the FCA.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
| proof |
errors in law |
rules of evidence |
|
Decision 25438
Full Text of Decision 25438
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
acts of violence |
|
|
Summary:
Physical violence in the workplace or in a place of employment outside working hours, especially with another co-worker, or even worse, with a person in authority, is not acceptable and justifies termination, especially if the employee's record is already tainted by past misconduct.
Decision 24771
Full Text of Decision 24771
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
acts of violence |
|
|
Summary:
Fired when during an altercation he allegedly struck his employer; was immediately dismissed. Such conduct, even under stressful circumstances, is misconduct. It must be noted that it is not the conduct of the employer that is being inquired into, as aggravating as claimant claims it to have been.
Decision 24313
Full Text of Decision 24313
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
acts of violence |
|
|
Summary:
There was misconduct in this matter; striking a supervisor is certainly not the kind of conduct which can be said to be acceptable. It is recognized by the arbitrator and by the Corporation that it did merit some period of suspension of salary even if there was an agreement to reinstate him.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
court judgments or out-of-court settlements |
|
|
Decision 22092
Full Text of Decision 22092
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
acts of violence |
|
|
Summary:
It is most unpleasant to have employees brawling in the workplace, but if the employer will pay no heed to claimant's request to intervene preemptively, and the other employee actually does attack, it cannot be misconduct for the assaulted claimant to resist and put up a fight in self-defence.
The Board held that to be in a fist fight and to be wrestling on the floor involved the actions of two people and claimant was one of the combatants. The referees have applied the wrong test.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
constitution of board |
member ineligible |
|
Decision 18012A
Full Text of Decision 18012A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
acts of violence |
|
|
Summary:
The Board had evidence that claimant had thrown small and large objects at a co-worker. That action was undoubtedly misconduct. Factors leading up to the incident (on-going dispute, alleged provocation and racial discrimination) correctly considered butthat was still misconduct.
Decision 17551
Full Text of Decision 17551
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
acts of violence |
|
|
Summary:
Involved in altercation, she used much physical violence. Matter of credibility and appreciation of facts. 2-week exclusion maintained.
Decision 16298
Full Text of Decision 16298
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
acts of violence |
|
|
Summary:
Teacher of mentally disabled children who pointlessly used brutality. The Board reduced the disqualification period to 3 weeks. In matters of credibility, the judge cannot substitute himself for the Board.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
criminal acts |
|
|
Decision 14381
Full Text of Decision 14381
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
acts of violence |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant shoved his foreman deliberately. That action was undoubtedly misconduct. The factors leading up to the incident and the stresses from which claimant was suffering are all extenuating circumstances which reduce the disqualification to the minimum of one week.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
minimum |
|
Decision 12630
Full Text of Decision 12630
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
acts of violence |
|
|
Summary:
Case turns on facts: school bus driver treating schoolchildren harshly.
Decision 11374
Full Text of Decision 11374
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
acts of violence |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant admits that he verbally abused supervisor for dating the same woman one night. Case returned to Board to make 3 findings: whether claimant assaulted superintendent, whether assault was work related and whether assault is the reason for firing and not excuse.
Decision 10729
Full Text of Decision 10729
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
acts of violence |
|
|
Summary:
Racial discrimination. Claimant provoked into fight in which other employee received a cut on his arm. Discrimination does not alter misconduct. There was a fight at work, normally that is misconduct. Provocation considered and disqualification was reduced to 2 weeks by Board.
Decision 69100
Full Text of Decision 69100
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
acts of violence |
Self-defence |
|
Summary:
The effect of the majority decision of the Board of Referees is that striking back in self defense is misconduct. That is an error in law. Self defence, without the use of excessive force, is not misconduct.
