Summary of Issue: Conflict Of Interest

Decision 75824 Full Text of Decision 75824

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.

Decision 75231 Full Text of Decision 75231

An employee of the bank for twenty four years was dismissed for using some of her personal money with some from her family and her parents made a loan for a friend, a client of the bank. The mortgage loan from the bank could not be obtained on time to complete a transaction. The code of conduct at the bank is that an employee "will not borrow from or lend personal funds to any client of the bank”. The claimant's appeal to the Umpire is dismissed.

Decision 72901 Full Text of Decision 72901

The Commission refused to pay EI benefits because the claimant lost his employment as a result of his own misconduct. According to the employer, the claimant was dismissed because he refused to sign the employer's code of conduct. According to the claimant, this was not misconduct, but rather a disagreement on a contract. Moreover, the discipline guidelines did not apply to his duties. The claimant had wanted changes to be made to the code of conduct because several sections did not apply to him, but the employer refused. Employees must obey reasonable orders so that the workplace can operate effectively. By rebelling against a reasonable order, workers make themselves guilty of misconduct. The claimant's appeal is dismissed.

Decision 70857 Full Text of Decision 70857

The employer states the claimant could not be kept on staff due to his misconduct which consisted using the company's vehicle and issuing receipts for work done, but pocketing the money since the work was done on his own account. He was competing with his employer for personal gains. The employer confirmed the vehicle is to be used for business purposes only and any unauthorized use of the company vehicle would result in immediate dismissal. The BOR found that the claimant did in fact use the employer's vehicle for personal use and concluded there was misconduct. The Umpire concluded that, in this case, it was basically an issue of credibility. The Board concluded the claimant had not been truthful and his version was not acceptable.

Decision 64976 Full Text of Decision 64976

The claimant was fired from her senior program officer position at the Department of Canadian Heritage, which consisted of promoting canadian unity, because she had agreed to serve as president of "Le Québec, un pays!". The employer felt that the claimant would be in a conflict of interest situation and informed her that she could not remain in her position unless she gave up the presidency of that group. The Umpire found that the evidence on file showed that there could be a conflict of interest between the two positions, and upheld the decision of the Board of Referees.

Decision 64908 Full Text of Decision 64908

The Umpire stated that an employee who enters into competition with his employer during the course of his employment, even in the absence of a non-competition agreement, abuses the employer's trust and his dismissal for this reason constitutes dismissal for misconduct within the meaning of the Act. The Umpire ruled that the claimant created his own unemployment by ignoring his employer's request to cease his self-employment activities.

Decision A-0553.03 Full Text of Decision A-0553.03

The claimant was dismissed for misconduct/conflict of interest. The Court ruled that a serious and conscious violation of the employer's Code of Conduct constitutes reprehensible conduct that is incompatible with the steady, loyal exercise of the duties the claimant was required to assume.

Decision 58663 Full Text of Decision 58663

Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0553.03

Decision 39317 Full Text of Decision 39317

Dismissed because his performance was unsatisfactory and because the businees that he operated on his own account was in conflict with that of his employer. Umpire found that the mere fact that the claimant was courting the same clients in order to offer his services in a field which, while not identical to that in which the employer’s business operated, was associated with that field, was grounds for conflict. An employee may not, on the face of it, exploit his employer’s client list for his own personal advantage.

Decision 28004 Full Text of Decision 28004

The mere fact that the claimant made a bid to wrest from her employer its cafeteria concession from Scott Paper does not in itself constitute misconduct. On the other hand, the writing of a petition to demonstrate the clientele's discontent amounts to disloyalty.

Decision 26687 Full Text of Decision 26687

Did not keep the written commitment not to carry on any commercial activity incompatible with his duties, even as an independent worker, without informing the employer of the nature of the activities.

Decision 26594 Full Text of Decision 26594

Held that working for both the Ontario government and the German government was misconduct for a public servant who, under ss. 20(1), shall not engage in any outside work or business undertaking in which his work would otherwise constitute full-time employment for another person.

Decision 26280 Full Text of Decision 26280

It is common ground that it is inappropriate and, indeed, illegal for an employee to conduct his own business interests while committed to an employer or to use the employer's tools for the betterment of the employee's own interests. Claimant attempted to obtain a list of the company's clients in violation of the Securities Agencies Act in order to start his own business.

Decision 23328 Full Text of Decision 23328

Claimant absented herself from her office during working hours to attend an information session on behalf of a direct competitor of her company. The employer considered this to be a breach of trust since claimant was a trusted and responsible officer in a position of authority.

Decision 23330 Full Text of Decision 23330

Mechanic who took advantage of his employment to get a clientele at home in a competing business.

Decision 22133 Full Text of Decision 22133

Claimant was fired for working for a competitor's business on company time. Another employee who was claimant's boyfriend, was involved in a business which was similar to that for which claimant was working. There is sufficient evidence to justify a conclusion of misconduct.

Decision 18007 Full Text of Decision 18007

Claimant had been terminated when the employer discovered he was registered as a partner in a new competing company. A retroactive 6-week disqualification was imposed by the Board following the employer's appeal.

Decision 11674 Full Text of Decision 11674

Income tax auditor used knowledge to evade taxation. Long list of breaches of conduct submitted by employer held not conclusive. Case turns on facts.