Decision A0294.06
Full Text of Decision A0294.06
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
court judgments or out-of-court settlements |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant was dismissed for allegedly selling tax-free tobacco while at work. Subsequent to the dismissal, the claimant and the employer agreed on minutes of settlement significantly altering the initial reason for dismissal. It was reasonable for the Umpire to conclude that the settlement minutes contradict a finding of misconduct on the claimant's part. Before a settlement agreement can be used to contradict an earlier finding of misconduct, there must be some evidence in respect of the misconduct which would contradict the position taken by the employer. The Court said that altogether the terms of the agreement in this case can reasonably be understood to contradict a finding of misconduct. The Court took into account its decision in Boulton (A-45-96).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
|
|
Decision A-0291.98
Full Text of Decision A-0291.98
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
court judgments or out-of-court settlements |
|
|
Summary:
The Umpire reasoned that once the employer withdrew the allegations of misconduct pursuant to a settlement agreement, there was no factual basis for supporting a finding of dismissal for cause. Citing its previous decisions in similar cases (Pérusse (A-0309.81), Wile (A-0233.94) and Boulton (A-0045.96)), the FCA ruled that the Umpire had erred. A BOR is not bound by how the employer and employee characterize the grounds on which the employment was terminated. It is the BOR's function to assess the evidence and to arrive at its own conclusion.
Decision 42906
Full Text of Decision 42906
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
court judgments or out-of-court settlements |
|
|
Summary:
Clmt grieved dismissal and employer agreed to accept a resignation in exchange for a withdrawal of the griavance. BOR erred in law in accepting that a withdrawn charge removes any attendant disqualification. The mere existence of a concluded settlement is not determinative of the issue of whether a clmt lost her employment because of misconduct.
Decision 40779
Full Text of Decision 40779
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
court judgments or out-of-court settlements |
|
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under A-0291.98
Decision A-0045.96
Full Text of Decision A-0045.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
court judgments or out-of-court settlements |
|
|
Summary:
Quoting Pérusse (A-309-81) and Wile (A-233-94), the FCA stated that the mere existence of a concluded settlement agreement is not of itself determinative of the issue of whether an employee was dismissed for misconduct. It is for the BOR to assess the evidence and come to a conclusion. It is not bound by how the employer and employee or a third party might characterize the grounds on which an employment has been terminated.**FCA was of the view that the Umpire erred when relying on the grievance settlement and the withdrawal of the previous submission by the employer he concluded there was no loss of employment due to misconduct.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Decision A-0436.95
Full Text of Decision A-0436.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
court judgments or out-of-court settlements |
|
|
Summary:
The BOR erred in stating that if claimant's termination is held to have been justified in an arbitration proceedings, the Commission could recover benefits paid to him. Such a conclusion would give an arbitration panel the final say as to the claimant'sentitlement. It is for the BOR alone to decide
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
theft |
|
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
issue not recognized |
|
Decision 31589
Full Text of Decision 31589
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
court judgments or out-of-court settlements |
|
|
Summary:
Determined that the beneficiary shall not be excluded until a decision is rendered by the Labour Court. Refusal by the Board to exercise its authority. Case returned to the Board for a decision independent of any Labour Court decision on the beneficiary's grievance.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
independent decision-making |
|
Decision 31282
Full Text of Decision 31282
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
court judgments or out-of-court settlements |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant fired on 26-6-92. Grievance filed and claimant reinstated 7-6-93. Position taken that the agreement to reinstate the claimant leads to the conclusion that company could not substantiate that conduct was terminable. Found that agreement for reinstatement is irrelevant.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| proof |
court judgments or out-of-court settlements |
|
|
Decision 24262
Full Text of Decision 24262
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
court judgments or out-of-court settlements |
|
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0233.94
Decision A-0233.94
Full Text of Decision A-0233.94
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
court judgments or out-of-court settlements |
|
|
Summary:
We would agree with the Umpire (that the wording used by both parties in the settlement agreement must be taken to nullify the comments of claimant's supervisor upon which the Board relied for misconduct) if the evidence of facts contained in the settlement agreement could be so viewed.
We are unable to agree that the Umpire erred in his decision to admit a settlement agreement made between the claimant and his former employer in the proceeding before him as "new facts". In BARTONE, the term "new facts" was interpreted in such a way as to allow the material to be treated as such.
The statement before the Human Rights Commission that neither party admits or alleges any fault for the unhappy differences that have arisen between them must be taken to nullify the comments of claimant's supervisor upon which the Board relied for misconduct, said the Umpire. Overturned by FC.
Decision 25462
Full Text of Decision 25462
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
court judgments or out-of-court settlements |
|
|
Summary:
The agreement calls for the employer to accept a letter of resignation, and for the claimant to withdraw his grievance. Claimant submits that this memorandum of agreement effectively withdraws the allegation of misconduct. Held that the wording of the agreement did not have such an effect.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
misjudgment |
|
|
| misconduct |
justification |
others misconduct themselves |
|
Decision 25338
Full Text of Decision 25338
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
court judgments or out-of-court settlements |
|
|
Summary:
The employer had already entered into a settlement with claimant. If a person is fired for misconduct there is no obligation to pay termination pay or wages in lieu of notice. It is simply inconsistent for the employer to have entered into an agreement and at the same time allege misconduct.
Decision 24365A
Full Text of Decision 24365A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
court judgments or out-of-court settlements |
|
|
Summary:
I was invited to defer making a decision until claimant's appeal to Human Rights had been decided. Indeed, in the final analysis, the question is whether claimant was or was not sexually or otherwise harassed. I think it would constitute a declining of jurisdiction by an Umpire.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
natural justice |
free of bias |
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
harassment |
generalities |
Decision 24313
Full Text of Decision 24313
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
court judgments or out-of-court settlements |
|
|
Summary:
The settlement reinstated the claimant but did not reinstate the wages and benefits between the date of firing and the date of reinstatement. The appeal was allowed solely because of the findings of an arbitration board hearing which the Board considered as binding and tying its hands. Error in law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
acts of violence |
|
|
Decision 23146
Full Text of Decision 23146
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
court judgments or out-of-court settlements |
|
|
Summary:
Without prejudice rule raised. Held that the statement "The terms of this settlement shall not be referred to in any subsequent proceedings between the parties" does not apply to proceedings before the Umpire, not being between the employer and the claimant. New facts allowed as part of the record.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
definition |
|
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Decision 22053A
Full Text of Decision 22053A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
court judgments or out-of-court settlements |
|
|
Summary:
Without prejudice rule examined and discussed. Settlement agreement providing for general damages contained a without prejudice caution and is not admissible in evidence as proof that the loss of employment was not due to the claimant's misconduct. Consequently, they are not new facts under s.86.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
definition |
|
Decision 21505
Full Text of Decision 21505
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
court judgments or out-of-court settlements |
|
|
Summary:
In fact, the preponderance of evidence came from the employer, the insured wanting to keep his own for his grievance. The Board and adjudication are two distinct entities: the decision of one must not void that of the other. The Board is limited to the evidence before it.
Decision 19724
Full Text of Decision 19724
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
court judgments or out-of-court settlements |
|
|
Summary:
The Commission urged that the settlement of the grievance not be taken into consideration in review of the Board's decision. While I agree that in the normal course events following the decision are not relevant, s.86 permits the Umpire to take account of facts known only after.
While it is true there may be a variety of reasons which ultimately lead to settlement of a grievance matter, it is now clear that the employer's decisions concerning perceived misconduct were withdrawn, as were the infractions.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Decision 17152
Full Text of Decision 17152
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
court judgments or out-of-court settlements |
|
|
Summary:
Disqualification for voluntary leaving removed by Board. Employer appeals on the basis that a provincial judge ruled that claimant quit. That decision constitutes new evidence which was not before the Board. Appeal referred back to Board for rehearing.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
definition |
|
Decision A-0369.88
Full Text of Decision A-0369.88
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
court judgments or out-of-court settlements |
|
|
Summary:
The Umpire's view that the burden of proving misconduct is on the Commission and the employer is correct. The new evidence (an agreement reached by the Labour Board) created a doubt concerning the alleged misconduct and, accordingly, misconduct had not been proven.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
definition |
|
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Decision 14800
Full Text of Decision 14800
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
court judgments or out-of-court settlements |
|
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0369.88
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
definition |
|
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
|
Decision 12500A
Full Text of Decision 12500A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
court judgments or out-of-court settlements |
|
|
Summary:
Dismissed due to sexual harassment. Investigation Committee found complaint justified. Claimant says no transcript from Committee but only notes by adjudicator. That does not mean the Board not entitled to consider it and give it whatever weight they think.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
harassment |
|
|
Decision 14070
Full Text of Decision 14070
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
court judgments or out-of-court settlements |
|
|
Summary:
Grievance not yet settled. At arbitration hearing it could be decided that the misconduct element did not exist or that dismissal was not justified. However, the Umpire must rely on the evidence in the record.
Decision 11942
Full Text of Decision 11942
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
court judgments or out-of-court settlements |
|
|
Summary:
While a determination by a civil court in a wrongful dismissal action cannot, of itself, determine whether there was misconduct, it is something which should be taken into account. Unfortunately, here, the order of the Court is not very informative as to the merits of the case.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
hearings |
attendance of third party |
|
Decision 11220
Full Text of Decision 11220
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
court judgments or out-of-court settlements |
|
|
Summary:
According to another tribunal there was misconduct but the penalty imposed by employer was too severe: dismissal replaced by 3 month suspension. This decision not binding on me. It is a new fact that is added to other evidence.
Award of court delivered after board's decision. According to PÉRUSSE, it is up to board to decide misconduct on the evidence presented and it in no way depends on any decision of another court. Does not permit review.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
layoff or separation |
definition |
|
| misconduct |
loss of employment |
definition |
|
Decision 10868
Full Text of Decision 10868
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
court judgments or out-of-court settlements |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant, who has appealed his dismissal as a civil servant before another forum, said he proved his case beyond doubt and was waiting for a decision. Even if eventually successful, a different decision is possible from Board or Umpire.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
| board of referees |
natural justice |
free of bias |
|
Decision 10736
Full Text of Decision 10736
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
court judgments or out-of-court settlements |
|
|
Summary:
While strictly speaking the judgment of the County Court [damages for wrongful dismissal] is not determinative of claimant's rights to UI, I can think of nothing more relevant to consider in a determination as to whether claimant lost employment throughown misconduct.
Decision A-0309.81
Full Text of Decision A-0309.81
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
court judgments or out-of-court settlements |
|
|
Summary:
Umpire erred in finding that the arbitration award upholding the insured's grievance proved that there had been no loss of employment for misconduct. This point to be decided not by grievance arbitrator, but by board and Umpire.
Grievance filed by insured in response to dismissal. Neither the law nor natural justice required the board to adjourn the case until the arbitration award had been made. Accordingly, the Umpire erred.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
missing information |
|
|
