Decision 70708
Full Text of Decision 70708
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dereliction of duty |
|
|
Summary:
The misconduct alleged by the employer is a breach of trust. The claimant wrote a letter in which he suggested to a client of the employer, that the work carried out on her future residence was carried out in an inefficient manner and with lack of interest. He discredited his employer. It is trite law to suggest there must exist a bond of trust between the claimant and an employer. If the bond is broken by reason of the actions of the claimant which diminishes the trust between the two, there has been a breach of trust tantamount to misconduct.
Decision A0337.07
Full Text of Decision A0337.07
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dereliction of duty |
|
|
Summary:
In accordance with its established policy, the employer, a senior's residence, fired the claimant following a third error in dispensing medication. The existence of three consecutive errors was shown at all stages of the file, in the documentation submitted as well as by the claimant's own recognition. The argument to the effect that this important part of the evidence can be excluded by reason of the provisions of the collective agreement does not hold, since the Board had the duty to examine all the evidence submitted - excluding the two prior errors constitutes an error in law. Moreover, the claimant demonstrated thoughtlessness or negligence such as to border on deliberateness, by having given the wrong medication to a resident despite the fact that the resident told her that it was not her usual medication, by the fact that the claimant had recognized herself that it was not the usual medication and did not verify the information on the dosage, by reason of the resident having to be transported to hospital and by the fact that it was the third time the claimant had made an error of this magnitude.
Decision A0064.06
Full Text of Decision A0064.06
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dereliction of duty |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant, a customer care representative, was dismissed for disconnecting customer calls before responding to the enquiries. The claimant said she was under great pressure to maintain the employer's mandatory standard of 5.5 calls per hour. The Board's role was not to determine whether the misconduct was justified or was the appropriate action - it had to decide whether disconnecting customer calls before responding amounted to misconduct. The Umpire ignored past rulings to the effect that it is sufficient for a misconduct to occur when the reprehensible act or omission was made wilfully (consciously, deliberately or intentionally). The claimant should have known, or foreseen that disconnecting of calls would likely result in dismissal. The fact that the claimant was afraid of losing her job and thought that her actions were the only solution certainly calls for sympathy but this does not alter the legal nature and implications of the acts committed. The fact that other employees, guilty of the same misconduct, were not fired is irrelevant.
Decision A-0138.01
Full Text of Decision A-0138.01
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dereliction of duty |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant failed to expose a co-worker’s fraud, thereby violating the employer’s standards of conduct code. Held by the FCA that this constituted misconduct under the Employment Insurance Act and that the claimant’s reasons for not exposing her co-worker, though commendable, did not change the fact that this was misconduct under the Act.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
breach of rules |
|
|
Decision 50469
Full Text of Decision 50469
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dereliction of duty |
|
|
Summary:
Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0138.01
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
breach of rules |
|
|
Decision A-1036.96
Full Text of Decision A-1036.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dereliction of duty |
|
|
Summary:
Indisputable that successive breaches, even minor ones, may constitute misconduct, but more doubtful that repeated trivial offences become misconduct. In any case, the assessment is carried out by the BOR - the backbone of the whole system set up by the Act for verification and interpretation of the facts. Numerous references made to other FCA decisions. Claimant's application for judicial review allowed by the FCA.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
justification |
|
|
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Decision 35395
Full Text of Decision 35395
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dereliction of duty |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant fully aware of employer's rule not to permit students to smoke in unauthorized areas and warned by his employer a number of times. He consciously and deliberately continued to violate employer's directions and as a result lost his employment. Loss clearly by reason of his own misconduct.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
breach of rules |
|
|
Decision 26941
Full Text of Decision 26941
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dereliction of duty |
|
|
Summary:
After having been warned on 2 previous occasions, claimant was terminated for failure to abide with company policy. The Board held that the employer may have had good reason for dismissal but claimant's conduct fell short of misconduct. With this rationale I agree. Relatively minor incident.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
merit of dismissal |
|
|
Decision A-0352.94
Full Text of Decision A-0352.94
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dereliction of duty |
|
|
Summary:
There was evidence that claimant "wilfully" changed manually her time card without management approval for a second time after having been previously warned that there was a company policy and procedure to follow. Such behaviour amounted to misconduct.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
definition |
|
|
| misconduct |
merit of dismissal |
|
|
Decision 26416
Full Text of Decision 26416
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dereliction of duty |
|
|
Summary:
Held that it was within the Board's discretion to find that breach of confidentiality and unprofessional conduct were misconduct for a nurse who gave general information about a patient's medical diagnosis to the visiting family of another patient and made comments not supportive of the hospital.
Decision 24788
Full Text of Decision 24788
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dereliction of duty |
|
|
Summary:
Legislative assistant who released sensitive political material to a friend in the media. Anyone employed by a political party must obviously know that whatever he hears or learns in the course of his work must be treated as confidential. His action was inexcusably naive. TUCKER applies here.
Decision 22583
Full Text of Decision 22583
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dereliction of duty |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant, employed in the delicatessen departement, sold merchandise to her mother at a lower price. Insignificant amounts involved but the relationship of trust was affected, according to the Board. The company required that cashiers do not handle orders from their relatives.
Decision 22352
Full Text of Decision 22352
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dereliction of duty |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant admits that he took a break and fell asleep during his shift. This would not appear to be an error in the way he performed his job but rather failing to perform it at all for a period of time. That is misconduct.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
tantamount to dismissal |
|
Decision 20770
Full Text of Decision 20770
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dereliction of duty |
|
|
Summary:
Dismissed after claimant had advertised for sale the discounted charter airline trips that he and his family were entitled to take because he was an employee of the company. Clearly contrary to policy. Acted in the sincere and honest belief that his actions were acceptable.
Decision 20533
Full Text of Decision 20533
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dereliction of duty |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant wrote an article for a foreign magazine without the publisher's permission or approval.
Decision 20015
Full Text of Decision 20015
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dereliction of duty |
|
|
Summary:
Night shift operating engineer found asleep, failing to make his regular rounds. The Board reduced the disqualification from 5 to 4 weeks. The Board's finding of misconduct is a finding of fact which as Umpire I must respect unless it can be said to be capricious or perverse.
Decision 17380
Full Text of Decision 17380
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dereliction of duty |
|
|
Summary:
Pump attendant working at night, but sleeping on the job. Complaints from customers. No error by the Board as regards the 6-week disqualification.
Decision 16003
Full Text of Decision 16003
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dereliction of duty |
|
|
Summary:
As a result of claimant's wilfully incorrect work, the inspection line had to be stopped, i.e. he deliberately interfered with production work. He says he attempted to test the inspector of his work to discover the person who was sabotaging his work. Reduced to 4 weeks.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
duration of disqualification |
|
|
Decision 75946
Full Text of Decision 75946
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dereliction of duty |
Abuse of electronic mail (E-Mail) |
|
Summary:
The employer advised the Commission that the claimant had violated the company's policy by watching "pornos" on his company computer while at work. An investigation was conducted and it was found that he had adult material on his computer. Employee acknowledges that any breach of this Agreement may result in immediate termination of the employment relationship. There is no doubt that the claimant's actions constituted misconduct which merited dismissal and a denial of benefits. The appeal by the employer’s before the Umpire is allowed.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
breaches of company policy |
|
|
Decision 71685
Full Text of Decision 71685
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dereliction of duty |
Abuse of electronic mail (E-Mail) |
|
Summary:
The reason given by the employer for dismissing the claimant was that he had breached its policies in regard to electronic communications, standard of conduct and harassment. The employer explained that the claimant used its electronic system to send messages that were deemed to contravene its policies due to their sexual and harassing nature. The employer had a zero tolerance policy in this regard. The claimant had received a prior warning in regard to using the employer's e-mail system in this manner but he continued to send other e-mails of the same nature. According to the Umpire, the claimant breached the employer's policies after having received a warning to stop this behaviour. The appeal is dismissed.
Decision 70931
Full Text of Decision 70931
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dereliction of duty |
Abuse of electronic mail (E-Mail) |
|
Summary:
The claimant was dismissed because he violated one of the company policies, specifically having sent pornographic materials using the company's laptop. The claimant was well aware of this policy having signed off on it and having been a general manager. The Umpire supported the BOR decision finding that sending pornographic material using the company's laptop certainly meets the criteria of violating the company's policy. It was not an error on his part, it was a conscious and deliberate act, which goes towards meeting the definition of wilfulness and misconduct.
Decision 70558
Full Text of Decision 70558
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dereliction of duty |
Abuse of electronic mail (E-Mail) |
|
Summary:
Claimant was dismissed because she breached her employer's policy and Code of Conduct by using the internal electronic mail service to provide information regarding the business venture of one of her family members. She understood the policy and Code of Conduct and had agreed to comply. The Umpire concluded that by using the internal electronic mail service for personnal use, she breached her employer's policy and Code of Conduct, which constitute misconduct pursuant to the Employment Insurance Act.
Decision 67257
Full Text of Decision 67257
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dereliction of duty |
Accessing e-mail of others |
|
Summary:
The claimant wilfully accessed the email of others without their permission and without the express permission of her employer.
Decision 77538
Full Text of Decision 77538
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dereliction of duty |
Internet misuse |
|
Summary:
The claimant was not eligible to receive regular EI benefits under section 30(1) of the EI Act because he lost his employment as a result of his own misconduct. The claimant stated that his errors were not sufficiently serious to justify his immediate dismissal or to break the bond of trust between him and the employer. He did not deny using work time to conduct personal business. He also did not deny signing and agreeing to abide by the company’s policy. He agreed to the effect that his lunch time had been subtracted from the time he was accused of taking to use the Internet and make telephone calls for personal reasons. The claimant’s appeal is dismissed.
Decision 76206
Full Text of Decision 76206
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dereliction of duty |
Internet misuse |
|
Summary:
The claimant was dismissed because he was using a company computer for improper purposes. The claimant undertook to use his employer’s computer equipment without permission and accessed, downloaded and viewed pornography and/or sexually explicit material both of which was in direct contravention of the employer’s policy and stated rules. The Board finds the claimant’s loss of employment was a direct result of his own misconduct. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed by the Umpire.
Decision 75988
Full Text of Decision 75988
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dereliction of duty |
Internet misuse |
|
Summary:
The claimant was dismissed because the reports of the employer showed an improper use of Internet for personal purposes, while the claimant was aware that such use contravened an employer’s policy restricting the use of Internet for work purposes only. The claimant knew he had accessed Internet sites that were inappropriate and not allowed. He was also aware of the employer’s Internet use policy and the fact that contravening this policy could result in an immediate dismissal. The Commission concluded that the claimant’s actions constituted misconduct within the meaning of the Act. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed by the employer.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
breaches of company policy |
|
|
Decision 75086
Full Text of Decision 75086
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dereliction of duty |
Internet misuse |
|
Summary:
The dismissal by the employer was that the claimant used the company’s computer system inappropriately and sent many emails with sexual content to other employees. He accessed a number of Internet sites with sexual and pornographic content. Such use of the computer system was against the company Code of Conduct. Disciplinary measures were imposed on some fifteen other employees for the same conduct. The claimant acknowledged that he accessed sexual sites somewhat accidentally and not seriously. He also acknowledged that in October 2008, he sent a joke e-mail of an erotic nature to his supervisor. The employer added that the claimant signed an agreement for a one-year suspension. The claimant indicated that he accepted the alleged facts and the decision for a one-year suspension because otherwise he would have been dismissed. The appeal by the Umpire.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
breaches of company policy |
|
|
| misconduct |
suspension * |
|
|
Decision 73632
Full Text of Decision 73632
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dereliction of duty |
Internet misuse |
|
Summary:
The Commission determined that the claimant had lost his employment as a result of his own misconduct. The claimant said in his claim for benefits that his employer accused him of visiting inappropriate Internet sites. The employer indicated on the ROE that the claimant had been dismissed because of serious professional misconduct. The claimant was a case worker who worked with troubled youth. An investigation of the claimant's computer revealed that the claimant spent his time on chat sites of a sexual nature involving teenagers. The times the claimant visited the sites in question corresponded to his hours of work and the claimant's Internet address appeared on all the messages in question. Given that the claimant worked with young people, his conduct was deemed unacceptable and he was dismissed. The claimant confirmed that he had done what the employer accused him of doing. He added that he believed that he was not doing anything wrong by "chatting" in this way with clients and that his employer did not tell him that this was wrong. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed.
Decision 71829
Full Text of Decision 71829
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dereliction of duty |
Internet misuse |
|
Summary:
The employer's evidence was that the claimant had been dismissed for breaching its electronic communication policy by downloading thousands of inappropriate pornographic materials onto his company laptop. As a result, the company's electronic system was infected with viruses. The employer added that the claimant was aware of the company's policy and of its code of conduct that prohibited such actions. The claimant's representative stated that the claimant had never been aware of the employer's policy in regard to the use of electronic equipment for his own use during his own time. The claimant admitted to downloading pornographic material recreationally. This was done on his own time and the material was downloaded in a sectioned off part of his hard drive. The employer stated that, as a senior technical support staff, the claimant not only had to know about the electronic equipment policy, he was responsible to monitor this policy. The claimant denied this statement. The Board of Referees found it was not credible that the claimant would not have been aware of the employer's electronic equipment policy and that his actions were not in accordance with proper workplace practice. The appeal is dismissed.
Decision 68477
Full Text of Decision 68477
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dereliction of duty |
Internet misuse |
|
Summary:
The claimant had used the employer's computer system to access pornographic materials in contravention of the employer's policy. He was aware of the employer's policy and still chose to disregard it. The fact that other employees were less severely disciplined is not relevant as the facts regarding those employees are not known. The claimant's contravention of the employer's policy was done consciously and deliberately. See also CUB 68431 in regard to a Dean of a college who was dismissed when the employer became aware that he had been having lengthy and sexually explicit conversations with several contacts using an internet instant messaging software on the employer's computer system during his work hours.
Decision 28882
Full Text of Decision 28882
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dereliction of duty |
airlines |
|
Summary:
One can easily understand the need for safety measures (for airline pilots) given the damage to property and to human life that may occur if they are not followed. If these rules are breached, it constitutes serious misconduct, whether it was done intentionally or through negligence.
Decision 76740
Full Text of Decision 76740
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dereliction of duty |
disrespectful attitude |
|
Summary:
The claimant filed a benefit claim after being dismissed by his employer. The Commission determined that the claimant was dismissed because of his misconduct. The employer complained that the claimant behaved so aggressively towards other employees that the claimant had to ensure that the claimant took his lunch break at a different time than the other employees. The employer also described the claimant's disrespectful attitude towards the residents of the residence where he worked. The employer had received complaints from the residents. The employer gave the claimant many verbal warnings. The BOR reviewed the evidence and found that the evidence of misconduct was established. 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 |
unacceptable behavior |
aggressively towards |
|
Decision 69228
Full Text of Decision 69228
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dereliction of duty |
railway workers |
|
Summary:
The claimant, a locomative engineer, was in the locomotive and operating the train. Despite a conversation with the conductor who had ultimate responsibility for the train, the locomotive went through a red light prohibiting passage and travelled at a speed of approximately 10 miles an hour for 4,000 feet. To contend that there was no misconduct and simply distraction trivializes the events that took place in the locomotive at the time the claimant should be alert and understand his responsibilities. The argument that lack of awareness of what happened is an excuse when there was an explicit failure to meet his contractual obligation is unacceptable. The Board trivialized the facts in this case and concerned itself with the severity of the sanction, a question not within its jurisdiction.
Decision 67626
Full Text of Decision 67626
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dereliction of duty |
railway workers |
|
Summary:
The claimant, who worked as a train conductor, reported to work with alcohol on his breath. He therefore had to undergo a breathalyser test, which was positive for alcohol. The employer's policy, with which the claimant was familiar, allowed zero tolerance for alcohol or other intoxicants while on duty. The claimant admitted that he was aware of the employer's zero tolerance policy, and knew that a positive test meant automatic dismissal.
Decision 30162
Full Text of Decision 30162
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dereliction of duty |
railway workers |
|
Summary:
The claimant neglected to obtain the authorization to proceed from the superintendent responsible for the rail right-of-way; claims technical defect of the walkie-talkie. The Umpire held that, in forgetting, there is no psychological element required to conclude on the wilful character of the Act. No misconduct.
Decision 28543
Full Text of Decision 28543
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dereliction of duty |
railway workers |
|
Summary:
Held that the brakeman, the subordinate employee in a crew of five composed of a conductor, an assistant conductor and 2 mechanics, does not have to bear the responsibility of his superiors who failed to obtain the clearance to proceed from the track foreman.
Decision 27845
Full Text of Decision 27845
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dereliction of duty |
railway workers |
|
Summary:
I consider claimant's use of alcohol until 2:30 a.m. (4 hours before reporting time) to be a wilful act tantamount to a wilful refusal to obey a reasonable, lawful rule of the railway industry.
Decision 27655
Full Text of Decision 27655
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dereliction of duty |
railway workers |
|
Summary:
The Board's decision refers to claimant's negligence in performance of his duties. Board concluded that it found no "willful intent to commit a wrongdoing" on claimant's part. I do not conclude that the Board erred or reached its decision perversely or capriciously or without regard to the evidence.
Decision 25401
Full Text of Decision 25401
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dereliction of duty |
railway workers |
|
Summary:
Some cars derailed. Excess of demerit points. It would be relevant to know whether he had been specifically warned in the past, because if in the face of warnings he had failed to take the proper steps at the time of this incident there would be a stronger indication of recklnessness on his part.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
demerit points |
|
|
Decision 25369
Full Text of Decision 25369
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dereliction of duty |
railway workers |
|
Summary:
Claimant's reasons constitute an "innocent explanation" (as per CUB 21645) for his disobeying his employer's orders. Railways are not entitled to issue illicit, risky orders just to make their trains run on time, and ignore human safety be ignored. Lawful orders must put safety over profits.
Decision 25127
Full Text of Decision 25127
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dereliction of duty |
railway workers |
|
Summary:
Claimant was one of a crew of 3 (an engineer, a conductor and a claimant/brakeman). It is obligatory for a crew to read the daily operating bulletin. The fact that they neglected to read it to be advised of what was ahead of them on the track constitutes recklessness amounting to misconduct.
Decision 22219A
Full Text of Decision 22219A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dereliction of duty |
railway workers |
|
Summary:
Claimant has maintained throughout, and there is no evidence by the employer or the Commission to the contrary, that the violation of Rule 42 (train entering working limits of repair crew without prior permission) was not deliberate and he was not even aware of the infraction until later advised.
Decision 23050
Full Text of Decision 23050
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dereliction of duty |
railway workers |
|
Summary:
The Board is correct in saying that the misconduct must have been committed by claimant. However, the fact that others may also have been negligent does not absolve claimant from responsibility unless the conduct of that other is such as to make claimant's conduct not wilful, negligent or careless.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
own misconduct |
|
|
Decision 22646
Full Text of Decision 22646
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dereliction of duty |
railway workers |
|
Summary:
The Board failed to consider whether claimant's actions constituted misconduct. Although the railway company concluded that its rules had been breached, no finding was made by the Board that claimant's actions or omissions constituted wilful or reckless conduct. This was a reversible error of law.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
loss of employment |
definition |
|
Decision 21645
Full Text of Decision 21645
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dereliction of duty |
railway workers |
|
Summary:
The evidence reveals that he admitted to knowing that certain of his actions were violations of the rules. The fact that he did violate certain rules does not necessarily mean misconduct. He had demonstrated his concern to his superior regarding his ability prior to the incident.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
| misconduct |
questions to examine |
|
|
| misconduct |
loss of employment |
definition |
|
