Decision A-0296.03
Full Text of Decision A-0296.03
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
definition |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant was fired for failing to awake and resume his work on time after his scheduled break. The Court confirmed that to consider misconduct under the Act the wrongful act must have been committed wilfully, but not necessarily with any wrongful intent. The Court found that the misconduct occurred when the claimant took the chance of missing work by not ensuring that he would be woken-up in time to resume work.
Decision 55955
Full Text of Decision 55955
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
definition |
|
|
Summary:
The incurring of debts or the inability to pay them are not in themselves misconduct. The employer warned the claimant that if he could not resolve the garnishee he would be dismissed. It was the claimant's failure to do anything to resolve the situation that the Board of Referees concluded was misconduct.
Decision A-0092.01
Full Text of Decision A-0092.01
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
definition |
|
|
Summary:
In a gesture of protest, the claimant, a correctional services officer, walked off the job for a day, alleging that the purpose of her action was to protect her own safety, and that of the inmates and the public. The Board of Referees (BOR) ruled in favour of the claimant, but this decision was reversed by the Umpire, confirmed by the Federal Court. The issue for the BOR was not to ask itself whether the employee was justified in her job action and in taking part in an illegal strike, nor whether the employer had just cause to dismiss the employee. The question that the BOR had to ask itself, and to answer, was whether participation in an illegal strike constituted misconduct within the meaning of the Act, and whether the employee had lost her employment as a result of that misconduct.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
labour dispute |
illegal walkout |
|
Decision A-0516.99
Full Text of Decision A-0516.99
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
definition |
|
|
Summary:
The FCA held that the Umpire erred in law when he decided that the claimant's behaviour could not amount to misconduct because it did not come within a definition in the Harassment Policy of the employer. It is misconduct within the meaning of the EIA which is relevant. Further, the Umpire took too narrow a view of the employer's rules on harassment when stating that there was no harassment unless the victim complains to the employer. Reference made to the definition of harassment drawn from the Ontario Human Rights Code.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
harassment |
|
|
Decision 51820
Full Text of Decision 51820
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
definition |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant fired (decision later modified to a suspension) for sending a slanderous message to a co-worker under the name of the most senior officer in the company using the internal e-mail system. BOR found that the dismissal was extreme and that the incident was not malicious. Held by Umpire that the BOR erred in applying the wrong test and in concluding that the company had withdrawn the severe penalty it had imposed. The company did withdraw the full dismissal but maintained a lenghty suspension without pay.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
misjudgment |
|
|
Decision 49834
Full Text of Decision 49834
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
definition |
|
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0092.01.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
labour dispute |
illegal walkout |
|
Decision 45132
Full Text of Decision 45132
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
definition |
|
|
Summary:
See summary indexed under FCA A-0516.99.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
harassment |
|
|
Decision 43055
Full Text of Decision 43055
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
definition |
|
|
Summary:
What is considered misconduct by the employer can never be the test of misconduct even if the employer subjectively considered the employee's conduct to be reprehensible. It is too narrow to be acceptable. Misconduct is conduct which is sufficient to justify a dismissal; it must adversely affect the employment relationship in a material way
Decision A-0006.98
Full Text of Decision A-0006.98
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
definition |
|
|
Summary:
The word "misconduct" is not defined as such in the case law. It depends largely on the circumstances. The breach must, however, be sufficiently serious that its perpetrator could normally foresee that it would likely lead to dismissal. BOR must ask itself whether the wrongful act committed is sufficiently serious to constitute 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 |
|
|
| misconduct |
questions to examine |
|
|
Decision 42559
Full Text of Decision 42559
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
definition |
|
|
Summary:
An employer has a right to determine whether claimant's conduct, from its point of view, becomes misconduct for the purposes of dismissal. That does not translate into misconduct within the definition of that term to satisfy the statute.
Decision A-0562.97
Full Text of Decision A-0562.97
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
definition |
|
|
Summary:
Teacher fired for having developed a special relationship with one student. Disqualification removed by BOR but reinstated by the Umpire. FCA held that although there may have been sufficient reason to dismiss the claimant from his employment as professor, the "misconduct" of S.28 is not to be assumed in all cases of legitimate dismissal. A finding of misconduct can only be made on the basis of clear evidence and not merely of speculation and suppositions.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Decision 41256
Full Text of Decision 41256
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
definition |
|
|
Summary:
In order to constitute misconduct, it must be shown (a) that the conduct in question constituted a breach of the employer-employee relationship; (b) that the conduct was wilful; (c) that there was a causal relationship betwen the conduct alleged and the dismissal; (d) that the conduct alleged to be misconduct was not a mere excuse or pretext for the dismissal.
Decision 40264
Full Text of Decision 40264
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
definition |
|
|
Summary:
Clmt’s disregard for company non-smoking policy despite the condition of his employment and the warning he received manifested a mental element of wilfulness on his part. Conduct which impacts upon the relationship between employer and employee constitutes misconduct and the claimant's breach of his undertaking adversely affected that relationship.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
breach of rules |
smoking prohibited |
|
| misconduct |
justification |
others misconduct themselves |
|
Decision 39616
Full Text of Decision 39616
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
definition |
|
|
Summary:
It is clear from the jurisprudence that conduct which results in an essential condition of employment having been breached, whether that condition is express or implied, constitutes misconduct in the legal sense. In this case, the collective agreement that the employee provide the employer with appropriate medical information to support his request for continued leave of absence from his employment, which he failed to do. There was a causal connection between the breach and the dismissal and this is a requirement to sustain a finding of misconduct.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
breach of rules |
|
|
Decision 37118A
Full Text of Decision 37118A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
definition |
|
|
Summary:
The Commission must prove that the act of which the claimant was accused constitutes a breach of an explicit or implicit obligation of the contract of employment, of such gravity that the employee normally should have foreseen that it would be likely to bring about his dismissal. The act must also have a psychological aspect. The conduct of which the claimant was accused must be voluntary or deliberate, or be the result of such heedlessness or negligence that it borders on the deliberate. It is sufficient that the claimant have acted consciously and in full knowledge of what he was doing. The misconduct must be the effective cause of the dismissal, not just the pretext for it.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
lateness |
|
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
meaning of a term |
|
Decision A-0875.96
Full Text of Decision A-0875.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
definition |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant started working as a truck driver in 02-94. In 06-94, claimant advised the employer that he could not carry on working as a driver: licence suspended for an offence committed in 07-93 i.e. seven months before he started to work. In a majority decision, the FCA held that claimant had lost his job without just cause. The fact that he could not retain his employment and had to resign following the loss of his licence is certainly a breach of duty which occurred during his employment. This breach was a direct result of his misconduct. To claim that the misconduct occurred prior to the employment is not a cause for disqualification is too mechanical an application of Brissette (A-1342-92) and Nolet (A-517-91). It fails to appreciate that the timing factor does not stand alone. It is but another facet of the casual link which must exist between the misconduct and the loss of employment.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
driving permit |
|
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
tantamount to dismissal |
|
| misconduct |
misconduct prior to employment |
|
|
| misconduct |
criminal acts |
|
|
| misconduct |
elsewhere than at work |
|
|
| misconduct |
questions to examine |
|
|
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
no reasonable alternative |
|
Decision 38481
Full Text of Decision 38481
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
definition |
|
|
Summary:
The concept of misconduct reaches beyond unreasonable conduct and poor judgement as those terms do not embrace wilful and deliberate acts to bring them within the concept of misconduct. An unreasonable act or poor judgement may constitute sufficient cause for the dismissal of an employee but those reasons for dismissal do not meet the test of misconduct.
Decision 38446
Full Text of Decision 38446
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
definition |
|
|
Summary:
Although the term misconduct is not defined in the legislation, the jurisprudence has established that conduct on the part of a claimant, which is inconsistent with the due and faithful discharge of his employment contract and for which he is dismissed, constitutes misconduct as that term is used in the Act.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
violations of contract |
|
|
Decision A-0402.96
Full Text of Decision A-0402.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
definition |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant was dismissed on the ground of breaching the hospital's confidentiality policy she accessed a patient's file not in her care. FCA set aside Umpire's decision because he did not determine whether the conduct was wilful or reckless to the point of being wilful. Matter referred back to the Chief Umpire for redetermination on the basis that the claimant did not lose her job by reason of her own misconduct.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
breach of rules |
|
|
Decision 37633
Full Text of Decision 37633
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
definition |
|
|
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 |
alcohol, drugs and gambling |
|
|
Decision 37306
Full Text of Decision 37306
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
definition |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant had two warnings concerning unsatisfactory performance. A recent resulted in lost revenues. Claimant's performance on the job was, considering the nature of his position (head estimator), inconsistent with the due and faithful discharge of the duties for which he was engaged. Ample evidence that this is misconduct and good cause for dismissal.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
incompetence |
|
|
Decision 36728
Full Text of Decision 36728
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
definition |
|
|
Summary:
The construction of "misconduct" is a question of law. Its application to the evidence is a question of fact. The evidence must fit the definition of misconduct. Misconduct has been defined as conduct that is wilful, conscious and deliberate. An act of misconduct must be reprehensible in nature. BOR didn't apply that test in this case.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
absences from work |
|
|
Decision 35847
Full Text of Decision 35847
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
definition |
|
|
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 |
alcohol, drugs and gambling |
|
|
Decision 35551
Full Text of Decision 35551
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
definition |
|
|
Summary:
Driving licence suspended because of delay in paying a fine. Ruled that the delay in paying a debt is not in itself misconduct. Precedents are already established with respect to behaviour outside working hours. Should apply only in the case of an act of wrong-doing.
Decision A-0471.95
Full Text of Decision A-0471.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
definition |
|
|
Summary:
Leave not approved and, despite warning, claimant took time off from work. Claimant disqualified for misconduct and decision upheld by the BOR and the Umpire. Appeal allowed by the FCA, which repeated that it had been wrong to think for a moment that the employer's opinion that the there was misconduct justifying dismissal could suffice. On the contrary, an objective assessment was required to determine whether misconduct had really been the cause of the loss of employment. The FCA had to ensure that the applicable principles were observed and that conclusions reached could be drawn from the facts as analyzed. In this case the decision did not appear to be properly based on the evidence on file.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
leave of absence denied |
|
|
| proof |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
Decision A0094.95
Full Text of Decision A0094.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
definition |
|
|
Summary:
The misconduct referred to in subsection 28(1) is not a simple failure of the employee to any obligation related to his employment; it is a failure of such scope that its author could normally predict that it would be likely to provoke his firing. See sibling decision, A-96-95 (Robert).
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
personal convictions |
|
|
Decision 28819
Full Text of Decision 28819
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
definition |
|
|
Summary:
An employer is entitled to require certain ethical standards of honesty and trustworthiness in employees. These are personal characteristics which are particularly required in the case of an employee of a financial institution. Conduct which undermines the employer's confidence is misconduct.
Not every breach of company policy is misconduct. Conduct inconsistent with a continuing employee-employer relationship will constitute such. Repeated instances of the negative conduct are not needed in all cases. One instance alone is sufficient when the conduct is of a very serious nature.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
alcohol, drugs and gambling |
|
|
| misconduct |
elsewhere than at work |
|
|
| misconduct |
dishonesty |
|
|
| misconduct |
breach of rules |
|
|
Decision 28142
Full Text of Decision 28142
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
definition |
|
|
Summary:
Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0471.95
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
leave of absence denied |
|
|
| proof |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
Decision 27755
Full Text of Decision 27755
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
definition |
|
|
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 |
alcohol, drugs and gambling |
|
|
Decision A-0352.94
Full Text of Decision A-0352.94
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
definition |
|
|
Summary:
No wrongful intent; therefore no intent to defraud, said the Umpire. It is not necessary for a behaviour to amount to misconduct that there be a wrongful intent. It is sufficient that the reprehensible act or omission complained of be made "wilfully", i.e. consciously, deliberately or intentionally.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dereliction of duty |
|
|
| misconduct |
merit of dismissal |
|
|
Decision 24215
Full Text of Decision 24215
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
definition |
|
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0225.94
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
merit of dismissal |
|
|
| misconduct |
dishonesty |
|
|
| misconduct |
questions to examine |
|
|
Decision A-0225.94
Full Text of Decision A-0225.94
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
definition |
|
|
Summary:
Our function is not to determine the seriousness of the incident which led to dismissal but whether the employer acted with good reason, said the Board. The Board properly considered the question of misconduct while ignoring the employer's subjective assessment as to whether dismissal was warranted.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
merit of dismissal |
|
|
| misconduct |
dishonesty |
|
|
| misconduct |
questions to examine |
|
|
Decision A-0236.94
Full Text of Decision A-0236.94
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
definition |
|
|
Summary:
BEDELL, TUCKER and BRISSETTE referred to. Collectively these cases stand for the proposition that if the necessary mental element is absent the conduct complained of will not be characterized as misconduct within the contemplation of s. 28 of the Act.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
merit of dismissal |
|
|
| misconduct |
improper language |
|
|
Decision 25461
Full Text of Decision 25461
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
definition |
|
|
Summary:
The Board simply equated a lie with misconduct. When the finding of misconduct by statute automatically results in complete denial of benefits, a higher standard than this must surely be applied.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
refusal to obey orders |
|
|
Decision 22905
Full Text of Decision 22905
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
definition |
|
|
Summary:
The test is whether claimant acted intentionally, either wilfully or negligently, in such a way that one can say he was repudiating his contract of employment. It is not every breach of an employee obligation that constitutes misconduct. The breach must be serious enough to justify discharge.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
misjudgment |
|
|
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
requiring or refusing a document |
|
Decision 20993
Full Text of Decision 20993
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
definition |
|
|
Summary:
It might be said that where a claimant can show that one of the circumstances enumerated in s.28 in regards to the "just cause" defence has been established it would be difficult to see how a finding of misconduct could be made. The practical implications might be the same.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
absences from work |
|
|
Decision 17150
Full Text of Decision 17150
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
definition |
|
|
Summary:
The Board ruled that there was no conclusive evidence to prove gross misconduct. This makes it unclear as to whether it applied the right test in law which is that of "misconduct". Not sufficiently careful in the statement of its findings.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
without regard for material |
|
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
evidence new |
witnesses |
Decision 16548
Full Text of Decision 16548
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
definition |
|
|
Summary:
In order to constitute misconduct, claimant's actions must be "inconsistent with the due and faithful discharge of the duties for which he is engaged". There must be "a mental element of wilfulness, or conduct so reckless as to approach wilfulness".
Decision 15189
Full Text of Decision 15189
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
definition |
|
|
Summary:
There must be a mental element such that the employee's action was wilful or at least of such a careless or negligent nature that one could say the employee wilfully disregarded the effects his or her action could have on job performance.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
| misconduct |
absences from work |
|
|
Decision 12747
Full Text of Decision 12747
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
definition |
|
|
Summary:
Applying these tests [examined relative to labour laws] to the facts of this case, no conclusive proof that claimant repudiated the contract of employment so as to constitute misconduct.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
| misconduct |
personality conflict |
|
|
| misconduct |
refusal to obey orders |
|
|
Decision A-0381.85
Full Text of Decision A-0381.85
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
definition |
|
|
Summary:
Dictionary emphasizes willful or wanton disregard of employer's interest. The words 'his own' imply responsibility and intention or recklessness. Parallelism with 'voluntarily'. The Umpire correctly stated that mental element of wilfulness is required.
It is argued that the meaning of an ordinary word of the English language is not a question of law. This question was put to rest in BEDELL where the Court said that the construction of the word 'misconduct' is a question of law.
The act complained of must have been wilful or at least of such a careless or negligent nature that one could say that the employee wilfully disregarded the effects his or her actions would have on job performance.
Since claimant's admission of impairment was admission of a fact only, and not of the requisite mental state, the Board considered proof of a mental element unnecessary, as if ss. 41(1) did not require wilfulness or recklessness. Error of law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
substance abuse |
|
|
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
selection of one ground |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
meaning of a term |
|
Decision 11640
Full Text of Decision 11640
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
definition |
|
|
Summary:
Infractions identified, as a whole, constituted misconduct inconsistent with faithful and proper performance of duties for which claimant had been hired.
Decision A-1716.83
Full Text of Decision A-1716.83
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
definition |
|
|
Summary:
Not necessary to attempt definition, perhaps undesirable to do so. Whether one's conduct is misconduct will depend largely on the circumstances of each case. Construction of word is a question of law. Whether particular act is misconduct is a question of fact.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
refusal to obey orders |
|
|
| board of referees |
constitution of board |
change of members |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
meaning of a term |
|
Decision A-0434.82
Full Text of Decision A-0434.82
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
definition |
|
|
Summary:
[Umpire Dubinsky's view that misconduct has to do with malfeasance connected with work itself]. Expressions used in 41 not technical and not to be approached as if technical. Participation in illegal strike is misconduct in relation to employment.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
rationale |
|
|
| misconduct |
own misconduct |
|
|
| misconduct |
real reason for dismissal |
|
|
| misconduct |
labour dispute |
illegal walkout |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
Decision A-0433.82
Full Text of Decision A-0433.82
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
definition |
|
|
Summary:
Expressions used in s.41 are not technical and should not be approached as if technical... Participation in illegal strike is misconduct in relation to employment.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
rationale |
|
|
| misconduct |
own misconduct |
|
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
| misconduct |
labour dispute |
illegal walkout |
|
