Decision 75604
Full Text of Decision 75604
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
alcohol, drugs and gambling |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant lost his employment by reason of his own misconduct. The claimant was in treatment for a gambling addiction and was therefore rehired by the employer on the condition that he not borrow money from co-workers. The Employer confirmed the claimant was a great worker but his gambling problem distracted him from his work. He was told that he would be fired if he asked other employees for money and the claimant agreed not to do so. The claimant visited an employee's home seeking a loan; he was dismissed the next day. The appeal by the claimant was dismissed by the Umpire
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
own misconduct |
|
|
| misconduct |
loss of employment |
definition |
|
Decision 76822
Full Text of Decision 76822
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
alcohol, drugs and gambling |
|
|
Summary:
According to the employer, the claimant was dismissed for unjustified absences and for reporting for work in a state of intoxication. He had received two written warnings in this regard and following the two warnings, the claimant reported for work in a state of intoxication on August 22, 2010. The claimant was dismissed on August 28, 2010. The Commission found that the claimant's actions constituted misconduct as to adversely affect the relationship of trust between himself and his employer. 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 76320
Full Text of Decision 76320
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
alcohol, drugs and gambling |
|
|
Summary:
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 |
breaches of company policy |
|
|
Decision 76227
Full Text of Decision 76227
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
alcohol, drugs and gambling |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant was dismissed in a letter dated December 1, 2009, because a urine test taken at work showed that he was under the influence of cannabis. The employee booklet clearly states the company’s zero tolerance policy on drugs and alcohol. According to the claimant, he never used any drugs at work or during work hours and he never went to work under the influence of drugs or alcohol. He claimed that he had a puff at 10:00 a.m. and that he was scheduled to start work at 2:30 p.m. The Commission determined that the claimant’s actions, namely, being under the influence of drugs at work, constituted misconduct. The Commission’s appeal is allowed by the Umpire.
Decision 75940
Full Text of Decision 75940
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
alcohol, drugs and gambling |
|
|
Summary:
The Commission refused to pay the claimant benefits because of his own misconduct. After failing a first drug test, the claimant was suspended and went into a rehabilitation program. However, after the program he failed another drug test and was dismissed. The Board finds as fact that the claimant tested positive for cocaine and opiates on both tests. The employer had a substance policy which prohibited the use of drugs. The claimant had been made aware of the policy when he was hired. 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 |
substance abuse |
|
|
Decision 74517
Full Text of Decision 74517
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
alcohol, drugs and gambling |
|
|
Summary:
An unfortunate set of circumstances led to the dismissal of the claimant and the ruling of misconduct. The claimant is suffering from alcoholism and violated a written agreement with his employer not to drink for two years. The Court reaffirmed that alcoholism cannot in itself be used to excuse the claimant's misconduct unless medical evidence is presented. The medical notes do not support the proposition the consumption of alcohol was involuntary. Voluntary consumption of alcohol by a claimant does not automatically excuse the consequences of a claimant's action. The appeal by the Commission is allowed.
Decision 74067
Full Text of Decision 74067
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
alcohol, drugs and gambling |
|
|
Summary:
The employer requested the claimant to submit to a medical assessment, as he had been drinking during working hours, in contravention of its policy. He was also to follow the recommended course of action before returning to work. The employer issued a record of employment indicating "illness" as reason. The claimant denied having such a problem, and refused to submit to an assessment. The claimant knew that the employer demanded that employees abstain from drinking on the job, and he had recently signed an agreement to that effect when working at "dry camp", and at all hours. He also knew that by refusing to take the assessment, he could loose his job. The claimant stated that having a drink after working hours was not important or relevant, even if he had agreed to abstain. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed
Decision A0213.09
Full Text of Decision A0213.09
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
alcohol, drugs and gambling |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant was dismissed due her misconduct (excessive consumption of alcohol in the workplace). The BOR and the Umpire concluded that the actions in question were not wilful given that the claimant attributed her alcohol consumption to her fatigue and that she had never received any previous warning from her employer regarding her work. Looking to the decision in Mishibinijima, the FCA reiterated that there can only be misconduct if the conduct is deliberate, that is, the actions that lead to the dismissal were conscious, wilful and intentional. In other words, there is only misconduct when the claimant knows or should have known that his conduct would impede on his ability to execute his obligations towards his employer and that, as a result, it was possible for him to be dismissed. The FCA stated that the claimant's explanations did not help in answering the issue of misconduct as they did not suffice to supersede the wilful nature of the alcohol consumption. Therefore, the Umpire should have corrected the error of law committed by the BOR.
Decision 72443
Full Text of Decision 72443
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
alcohol, drugs and gambling |
|
|
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 |
absences from work |
Alchoholism |
|
Decision A0408.07
Full Text of Decision A0408.07
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
alcohol, drugs and gambling |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant was dismissed after she tested positive in a drug test while she was under probation for committing a similar infraction. The Commission determined that the claimant had lost her employment because of her own misconduct. The FCA determined that the BOR and the Umpire had misinterpreted, in law, the concept of misconduct and that the claimant must be disqualified to benefits by reason of her misconduct.
Decision 70257
Full Text of Decision 70257
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
alcohol, drugs and gambling |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant was fired for testing positive on a drug post-accident test as contemplated in the employer's policy. Although colleagues at work confirmed they observed no sign of physical impairment with the claimant, signs of impairment can manifest itself physically and mentally. The umpire concluded that while there must be a nexus between the impugned conduct and the workplace, the positive testing must be preferred to the opinion of co-workers.
Decision A-0315.05
Full Text of Decision A-0315.05
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
alcohol, drugs and gambling |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant was disqualified following his dismissal for poor performance at work and absenteeism related to alcoholism. Umpire allowed the claimant's appeal on the grounds that the claimant's alcoholism justified his misconduct. FCA reversed the Umpire's decision ruling that the grounds for the claimant's dismissal was not his alcoholism but rather to the numerous warnings from the employer that his overall conduct, including his repeated absences from work and late arrival were unacceptable. The Court also based his decision on the fact that the claimant rejected the help offered by the employer to resolve his problems with his alcoholism.
Decision A-0538.04
Full Text of Decision A-0538.04
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
alcohol, drugs and gambling |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant lost his employment due to repeated absences from work related to alcoholism. The Federal Court concluded that the claimant could only know that such breaches to his employment contract were such that it was normally predictable that he could lose his job. The Court stated that it was an error of law to say that alcoholism can be used to justify one's own misconduct and quashed the Umpire's decision.
Decision 61404
Full Text of Decision 61404
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
alcohol, drugs and gambling |
|
|
Summary:
Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0538.04
Decision A-0255.03
Full Text of Decision A-0255.03
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
alcohol, drugs and gambling |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant had lost his job because he had failed to show up for work, as he was under the influence of drugs. The Court concluded, relying on its decision in Turgeon (A-0582.98) that, as with a person with an alcohol problem, the voluntary and reckless use of drugs, particularly illegal drugs, is not an excuse and is not sufficient to make the disqualification under the EI Act inapplicable to a claimant.
Decision A-0072.02
Full Text of Decision A-0072.02
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
alcohol, drugs and gambling |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant was dismissed when caught smoking marijuana outside the plant at the end of his shift. The BOR found that the Commission had failed to establish that the claimant either knew or was reckless in not knowing his actions would lead to his dismissal. The Court touches on the responsibility of the Commission to prove that the loss of employment is due to misconduct and finds that the Umpire erred in law in reversing the Board's decision.
Decision 57074
Full Text of Decision 57074
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
alcohol, drugs and gambling |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant given a 2-year probation after being caught smoking a joint at work. Some 22 months later he failed a urine test and was fired. The BOR allowed the claimant's appeal finding that the claimant had an addictive disorder and that the intent of willful misconduct was not present. Held by Umpire that the fact that a person may have a substance abuse disorder, it is incumbent upon that person to take the necessary steps to correct their illness. If they continue working and then abandon their abstinence from alcohol or drug abuse, then it is their act of abandonment which constitutes misconduct and resulting in loss of employment. Commission appeal allowed.
Decision 56966
Full Text of Decision 56966
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
alcohol, drugs and gambling |
|
|
Summary:
Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0255.03
Decision 55140
Full Text of Decision 55140
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
alcohol, drugs and gambling |
|
|
Summary:
The BOR erred in finding that the element of willfulness had not been proven. Not necessary for the BOR members to delve in the claimant's mind as to why he would disregard the number of warnings regarding his coming to work in an inebriated state. He did chose to drink and to come to work in an unfit condition. This, if not an indication of willfulness, is surely an indication of "recklessness as to approach willfulness" to use the words of the FCA in Tucker (A-0381.85).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
questions to examine |
|
|
Decision 54837
Full Text of Decision 54837
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
alcohol, drugs and gambling |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant failed to report to work from April 9 to April 26, 2001 without notifying his employer and spent his time gambling in casinos. He said that he was a compulsive gambler and was in a deep state of confusion and depression as a result of recent losses and financial debt. Umpire stated that absenteeism from work without notifying the employer and supplying a valid reason evinces a wilful and wanton disregard of the interests of the employer and a disregard of a standard of behaviour an employer has a right to expect of an employee.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
unexcused absences from work |
|
|
Decision 54535
Full Text of Decision 54535
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
alcohol, drugs and gambling |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant dismissed following a theft at her employer's premises. She argued that she had a gambling addiction and that because of this weakness she did not have the psychological element for the misconduct to be clear. BOR accepted her argument. Commission claimed that a person who argues that because of emotional problems there was no misconduct cannot, in the absence of supporting evidence, be excused for the misconduct of which that person is accused. Citing the FCA decision in Turgeon (A-0582.96), Umpire found for the Commission.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dishonesty |
|
|
Decision A-0135.01
Full Text of Decision A-0135.01
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
alcohol, drugs and gambling |
|
|
Summary:
The BOR found that, in light of the claimant's 14 years of service and the fact that it was his first offence of this kind, smoking a joint in the workplace could not lead to disqualification for reasons of misconduct. It felt that the sanction was disproportionate to the offence. The Court, citing in particular Fahkari (A-0732.95), Namaro (A-0834.82) and Secours (A-0352.94), ruled that the role of the BOR was not to question whether the severity of the sanction was justified or whether the employee's gesture constituted valid grounds for dismissal, but whether the gesture constituted misconduct within the meaning of the Act.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
merit of dismissal |
|
|
Decision A-0570.00
Full Text of Decision A-0570.00
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
alcohol, drugs and gambling |
|
|
Summary:
Despite evidence in the form of an expert report which was submitted as evidence that the claimant's misconduct was not wilful, the report was not capable of supporting the conclusion that his conduct was not wilful. The report provided general information about the effect of alcohol addiction but expressed no firm opinion about the claimant himself. Application dismissed by the Court.
Decision 50536A
Full Text of Decision 50536A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
alcohol, drugs and gambling |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant, a correctional services officer, had developed a romantic relationship with an inmate, contrary to professional ethics. She had also been involved in drug trafficking in the institution. This was considered to be reprehensible behaviour with an inmate on the part of the claimant and, although the claimant was acquitted of the first two charges, the BOR could not ignore the last two charges of which she was found guilty.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
misjudgment |
|
|
| misconduct |
criminal acts |
|
|
Decision 53041
Full Text of Decision 53041
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
alcohol, drugs and gambling |
|
|
Summary:
Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0072.02
Decision 49361
Full Text of Decision 49361
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
alcohol, drugs and gambling |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant dismissed for theft of $20,000 from her employer to meet her cocaine needs. Alleged that she was not responsible for her actions since she was continually under the influence of the cocaine and suffered from a drug-induced illness. BOR allowed the claimant's appeal based on the fact that the person had put her life in order and ruled that the employer should have proceeded on a gradual punitive basis. Error according to the Umpire. Nothing in the file to relieve the claimant of responsibility for the repeated crimes that she admitted having committed.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dishonesty |
|
|
| misconduct |
substance abuse |
|
|
Decision 49018
Full Text of Decision 49018
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
alcohol, drugs and gambling |
|
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0570.00
Decision A-0582.98
Full Text of Decision A-0582.98
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
alcohol, drugs and gambling |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant was disqualified following his dismissal for absenteeism caused by his alcoholism. BOR allowed the appeal on the grounds that the actions criticized did not indicate intention on the part of the claimant, given his problem. Decision upheld by Umpire. FCA reversed the Umpire's decision, ruling that the mere fact of having an alcoholic problem is insufficient to make the exclusion contemplated in the Act inapplicable to a claimant, especially since there was no medical evidence to that effect on the record.
Decision 43295
Full Text of Decision 43295
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
alcohol, drugs and gambling |
|
|
Summary:
Lost his job as a result of his compulsive gambling disorder, which led him to defraud his employer in order to go and gamble at the Casino. Umpire found that the fact that the claimant may suffer from compulsive behaviour which leads him to gamble does not, in any way, change the fact that the employer had just cause to dismiss him in light of his conduct.
Decision 42624
Full Text of Decision 42624
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
alcohol, drugs and gambling |
|
|
Summary:
Clmt came to work with liquor on his breath. Umpire ruled that the consumption of alcohol is a willful act but it is not an act of miscunduct unless alcohol is consumed on the job or an employee reports for work showing the effects of the alcohol or somehow contravenes an established rule or policy of an employer.
Decision 41482
Full Text of Decision 41482
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
alcohol, drugs and gambling |
|
|
Summary:
Compulsive gambling, drug addiction and alcoholism cannot be excuses for addicted person to lose a job and then expect the taxpayers, through the vehicule of Employment Insurance, to bear the burden for them.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
rationale |
|
|
Decision 41470
Full Text of Decision 41470
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
alcohol, drugs and gambling |
|
|
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 |
absences from work |
|
|
| misconduct |
lateness |
|
|
Decision 41931
Full Text of Decision 41931
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
alcohol, drugs and gambling |
|
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0582.98
Decision 40959
Full Text of Decision 40959
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
alcohol, drugs and gambling |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant was fired because he reported to work under the influence of alcohol and in no shape to work. Umpire ruled that the claimant's decision to report for work under the influence of alcohol constituted misconduct within the meaning of the Act because the employer has the right to expect all employees to be sober when they report for work.
Decision 37809A
Full Text of Decision 37809A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
alcohol, drugs and gambling |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant arrived on the job under the influence of alcohol. Umpire ruled that because the claimant appeared for work in a manner which was described by the Safety Manager as unable to safely perform his duties, he was guilty of a conduct which was inconsistent with the due and faithful discharge of the duties for which he was engaged. Consuming alcohol before appearing for work implies an element of wilfulness or recklessness approaching wilfulness in the claimant's conduct. Ref. to Tucker(A-0381.85).
Decision 40234
Full Text of Decision 40234
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
alcohol, drugs and gambling |
|
|
Summary:
Although clmt admitted having consumed alcohol during his hours of work, he maintained that alcoholism was a disease and found it unjust that he had been dismissed for this reason. The issue was not to determine if alcoholism was a disease but to decide if his dismissal was justified to receive regular benefits.
Decision 38991
Full Text of Decision 38991
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
alcohol, drugs and gambling |
|
|
Summary:
Suspended for having taken an amount of $500 belonging to the company, because he liked to gamble. Umpire found that the fact that the claimant might suffer from a pathological behaviour pattern that incited him to gamble in no way altered the fact that the employer was justified in suspending the claimant because of what he did. The BOR took the wrong direction in basing its decision on the fact that, in its opinion, the claimant had in no way wished to commit a reprehensible act.
Decision 37633
Full Text of Decision 37633
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
alcohol, drugs and gambling |
|
|
Summary:
Bank employee . Dismissed because the claimant misused his expense account credit card to finance his gambling addiction to the extent of $24,000. Umpire concluded that the misappropriation of funds by a bank employee, whether the funds are those of the bank or of customers, is misconduct. Rarely will one be able to conclude that such misappropriation occured without the requisite mental element of willfulness.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
definition |
|
|
Decision 36832
Full Text of Decision 36832
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
alcohol, drugs and gambling |
|
|
Summary:
Not solely the loss of his driver's licence that caused termination of claimant's employment but rather his failure to advise his employer, as part of his contract, to report any incident arising as a result of use of alcohol. Could reasonably be found to be misconduct.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
violations of contract |
|
|
Decision 35847
Full Text of Decision 35847
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
alcohol, drugs and gambling |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant addicted to alcohol. This addiction does not exempt the claimant from his obligations with regard to his employment nor does it excuse his actions which violated the contract of employment. The employer acted in good faith and on reasonable grounds in dismissing the claimant.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
definition |
|
|
Decision 35428
Full Text of Decision 35428
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
alcohol, drugs and gambling |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant, a constable, arrested for possession of narcotics for the purpose of sale and trafficking while off-duty. Being charged with criminal offences does not necessarily prove misconduct. Here, the nature of misc. is so deleterious to his occupationthat the Director of Police had to suspend him
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
criminal acts |
|
|
Decision 34832
Full Text of Decision 34832
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
alcohol, drugs and gambling |
|
|
Summary:
Case of a pilot where passengers complained of profanity and the smell of alcohol. Held that it is not up to the employer to prove that claimant was inebriated or that he had consumed alcohol. A breach of trust in the employer-employee relationship is sufficient ground for misconduct.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
questions to examine |
|
|
Decision 34616
Full Text of Decision 34616
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
alcohol, drugs and gambling |
|
|
Summary:
The beneficiary claims he is an alcoholic. However, he failed to fulfil obligations that are implicit in the work contract binding him to his employer. The employer/employee relationship imposes duties and obligations on both parties. The Board upheld the interests of one party, while ignoring the interests of the other party. This is not acceptable.
Decision 32190
Full Text of Decision 32190
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
alcohol, drugs and gambling |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant dismissed by CP Rail for consuming alcohol and driving employer's vehicle while on the job. Alcoholism invoked as an illness. Held that consuming alcohol on the job is a deliberate act and an employee is not excused from having misconducted himself by reason of his addiction.
Decision 30745
Full Text of Decision 30745
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
alcohol, drugs and gambling |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant terminated after he tested positive for marijuana in a random alcohol and drug test conducted by employer. Claimant's job is to put together scaffolds for industrial plants. Claimant received warnings and aware of the random drug testing policy. Issue of safety involved. Misconduct proven.
Decision 28819
Full Text of Decision 28819
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
alcohol, drugs and gambling |
|
|
Summary:
Credit union employee who developed a substance abuse problem and to pay for this habit engaged in some cheque kiting. Even if the cheque kiting had been in relation to another financial institution, dismissal would still have been justified on the ground of misconduct.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
elsewhere than at work |
|
|
| misconduct |
dishonesty |
|
|
| misconduct |
definition |
|
|
| misconduct |
breach of rules |
|
|
Decision 27755
Full Text of Decision 27755
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
alcohol, drugs and gambling |
|
|
Summary:
No-smoking rule violated in hazardous area. Claimant is an addict. The Board held that by habit he found himself smoking in a non-smoking area. Although this decision is not explicit, I read it as implying a finding that he did not wilfully violate the rule. Element of wilfullness not present.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
definition |
|
|
Decision 27175
Full Text of Decision 27175
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
alcohol, drugs and gambling |
|
|
Summary:
There is no question whatsoever the failure of an employee to perform his duties by virtue of the consumption of alcohol is misconduct sufficient to justify his termination. It is a question of fact for the Board to determine. Claimant appeared for work in intoxicated condition after warnings.
Decision 26861
Full Text of Decision 26861
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
alcohol, drugs and gambling |
|
|
Summary:
Administrator who misappropriated money from his employer to satisfy his passion for gambling. Repeat offence after making an arrangement to repay these amounts to the employer. In my view, a person must be responsible for what he or she does, insofar as he or she is aware of it.
Decision 26443
Full Text of Decision 26443
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
alcohol, drugs and gambling |
|
|
Summary:
Repeated absences and late arrivals after many warnings. His only ground of appeal is that he is an alcoholic and sickness rather than misconduct was involved. I do not agree. He was not dismissed because of his alcoholism, which could well be the cause of much of his misconduct.
Decision 26347
Full Text of Decision 26347
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
alcohol, drugs and gambling |
|
|
Summary:
The dissenting member expressed concern that an alcoholic might have insufficient control to be considered capable of wilful conduct, that claimant's conduct during the 2-day absence could have been inadvertent and that claimant may not have had the control necessary to resist a drink.
It was claimant's failure to abide by the rules against drinking established in a treatment programme which was at the root of his misconduct and the related unreported absence. It is reasonable to assume that the decision to drink is made when sober and with knowledge of the consequences.
Decision 26133
Full Text of Decision 26133
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
alcohol, drugs and gambling |
|
|
Summary:
Employed at a race track. Used company deposits to cover gambling debts. The Board ruled that claimant was a sick person not responsible for her actions. Held that UI does not provide support for those who cannot hold a job through their own self-inflicted addictions for alcohol, drugs and gambling.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
personal reasons |
gambling addiction |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
legislation |
burden of proof |
|
