Summary of Issue: Demerit Points

Decision 74813 Full Text of Decision 74813

The claimant explained that he was only defending himself when he was into an altercation with another employee. His statement was that he was threatened with personal harm by another employee and he grabbed that person by the collar. The claimant had one prior warning in the past six month period. The senior manager of the company advised he was dismissed because the claimant had exceeded 60 demerits which the company allows. The Board came to the conclusion that the claimant in his conduct did an act which amounted to wilful misconduct under the Act. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed by the Umpire

Decision 73985 Full Text of Decision 73985

The employer stated that the claimant had been dismissed for three violations on a tour of duty including failing to perform a brake test, operating a train at 30 miles per hour in a 15 miles per hour zone and failing to blow a full signal at a crossing. The employer stated that these violations could have put the security of people at risk. This resulted in the claimant receiving 40 demerit points bringing his total demerit points to 60. This warranted a dismissal. The claimant also submitted that his behaviour had not been wilful but had resulted from extreme fatigue due to an unforeseen change in his work pattern. The employer had offered to reduce the demerit points to 20 and change his dismissal to a suspension. The claimant refused that offer and was dismissed. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed.

Decision 71038 Full Text of Decision 71038

The claimant had been working as a limousine driver and was dismissed because of his driving record. He received five separate memos of discipline which showed improper conduct, as well as three speeding tickets. Acts of speeding are deliberate acts and are certainly reckless when you reach a point where you are driving 95 km an hour in a 50 km zone. In this case, it is clear that the claimant was in a position of driving a limousine for his employer and at funerals, and this demands proper conduct both as to the driving as well as the conduct during the funeral procedures. According to the Umpire, the final incident justified the claimant being dismissed for misconduct as this act was clearly excessive and should be considered a reckless act which warranted his dismissal. Appeal dismissed.

Decision 63505 Full Text of Decision 63505

Because of moving violations and the claimant's driving record, the employer's insurance company could not continue to insure the company's vehicle operated by him. The Umpire stated that the claimant's position was to operate heavy machinery and to do this; he must have a valid driver's licence as a condition of employment and insurance coverage for both the driver and the machine must be available to the employer. The judge concluded that the claimant failed to fulfill an essential condition of his employment and it was misconduct under the Act.

Decision 25401 Full Text of Decision 25401

The Board should attach no particular significance to the fact that claimant had previous demerit points unless it has evidence as to relevant circumstances. It should consider whether these indicate a pattern of reckless conduct together with the degree of recklessness in the last act.