Decision 75852
Full Text of Decision 75852
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dishonesty |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant lost her employment as a result of her own misconduct and is not eligible to receive benefits. The claimant was employed as a Restaurant Manager in a pizzeria. First, the employer suspended her after having noted that certain invoices had been altered to show sales of a lower value than the actual sales. After a full investigation, the employer noted many instances where double invoices had been made. The evidence show that the original was not recorded while a second invoice for a lesser amount was recorded. The claimant denied any wrongdoing. The Board finds that the above examples are more than sufficient to prove that the orders were changed and that the money difference disappeared. The Board finds that the above examples indicate that money was taken and that it was the claimant who was on duty at the time. The claimant’s appeal is dismissed by the Umpire.
Decision 76444
Full Text of Decision 76444
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dishonesty |
|
|
Summary:
The employer dismissed the claimant after an audit conducted more than a year later revealed an overpayment in the claimant's pay. The claimant acknowledged that she had been aware of the overpayment, but that she failed to inform the employer because, at that time, she was preoccupied with her mother's health. The claimant stated that she never intended to defraud her employer and that she had even offered to repay the amount. The employer stated that it lost trust in the claimant because she benefitted for all that time without saying a word. In view of this breach of trust, the employer stated that it had no choice but to dismiss the claimant. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed.
Decision 75127A
Full Text of Decision 75127A
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dishonesty |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant indicated that she was dismissed for refusing to work a shift. She told her employer she didn’t come in to work because of a health problem. Initially, the claimant had requested a different shift, and her request was denied. On her return to work, the employer expressed doubts about the reason for her absence; the claimant admitted that her mother was visiting her. The BOR asked her why she had been absent; the claimant reiterated that her sister had been ill. She contradicted her initial account of the facts given to the employer. All of the evidence shows that the claimant lied. That fact in itself constitutes misconduct liable to result in dismissal. The claimants appeal is dismissed by the Umpire.
Decision 75036
Full Text of Decision 75036
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dishonesty |
|
|
Summary:
The employer dismissed the claimant because he had done some work on the side for one of the employer's customers and had kept the money. The work was done during the claimant's working hours with equipment and products belonging to the employer. The employer considered the claimant's conduct to be theft. The claimant had since reimbursed the employer, who had deducted $145.00 from his last paycheque to make up for the loss caused by the claimant's actions. Claimant stated that the incident was the only one of its kind during his entire period of employment. At the time of the alleged incident, the claimant needed $30.00 to buy groceries. The Commission's appeal is allowed by the Umpire.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
theft |
|
|
Decision 75006
Full Text of Decision 75006
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dishonesty |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant was dismissed as he was obtaining a financial benefit as a result of participating in a cash back scheme. The practice consisted of using certain service stations to refill the employer's vehicle. It is alleged certain dealers were charging a different price to fill a commercial vehicle and gave the driver a cash gift card. The claimant does not dispute he participated in a fraud against the company, at its expense, but pointed out that 19 other drivers from his unit were also indulging in the same act.
The claimant's actions were, in law, fraudulent and a wilful act. The claimant is not entitled to benefits as it consists of misconduct. The appeal by the commission is allowed by the Umpire.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
criminal acts |
|
|
| misconduct |
insubordination |
|
|
Decision 68122B
Full Text of Decision 68122B
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dishonesty |
|
|
Summary:
The reason given by the employer for dismissing the claimant was that he had sent e-mail messages purporting to be the President and CEO of the Postal Corporation by signing the messages under this person's name. The claimant initially denied doing this but later acknowledged his action. He explained that he had sent the e-mail to senior management when he had not received a reply to a message he had sent to the President and CEO in regard to his disagreement with the company's decision to close a postal office in Quebec. The employer indicated that the claimant's actions had irreparably breached the employment relationship. This case the claimant's conduct was wilful and deliberate. I agree with the Board's minority member that the claimant's action irrevocably damaged the employment relationship and that this constituted misconduct pursuant to the EIA. The Commission's appeal is allowed.
Decision 56396
Full Text of Decision 56396
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dishonesty |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant, an employee of Labatt’s Brewery, was dismissed for having kept a cellular phone he had won at one of his employer’s promotional events, although he was not allowed to participate in the draw. BOR allowed the claimant’s appeal because the employer had not reminded his employees that they were not eligible for such draws and no compelling evidence demonstrated the claimant was aware of the rule. BOR erred in law according to the Umpire. The claimant’s behaviour indicated he knew his behaviour was incorrect or at least had serious doubts about it when he selected the beer case he knew contained a cellular phone. Trust had been destroyed and the employer had no other choice but to dismiss the employee. Commission’s appeal allowed.
Decision 54535
Full Text of Decision 54535
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dishonesty |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant dismissed following a theft at her employer's premises. She argued that she had a gambling addiction and that because of this weakness she did not have the psychological element for the misconduct to be clear. BOR accepted her argument. Commission claimed that a person who argues that because of emotional problems there was no misconduct cannot, in the absence of supporting evidence, be excused for the misconduct of which that person is accused. Citing the FCA decision in Turgeon (A-0582.96), Umpire found for the Commission.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
alcohol, drugs and gambling |
|
|
Decision 53554
Full Text of Decision 53554
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dishonesty |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant lost the job she held for some 20 years because she falsified her expense accounts. She argued that at the time she committed the fraud, she was suffering from compulsive gambling. Referring to the FCA decisions in Brissette (A-1342.92), Joseph (A-0636.85) and Turgeon (A-0582.98), Umpire ruled that the simple fact of having a psychological or psychiatric problem was not sufficient in itself to render the disqualification under the Act inapplicable.
Decision A-0446.00
Full Text of Decision A-0446.00
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dishonesty |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant, a supervisor of automated tellers, used the employer's card to withdraw $40 outside his hours of work. Noting the claimant's state of depression, the BOR concluded that there was no misconduct because the claimant's psychological state prevented him from assessing the consequences of his act and the requirements of intent and carelessness were not present. Relying on the FCA's decision in Brissette (A-1342.92), the Umpire determined that the act did constitute misconduct. Claimant's application for judicial review summarily dismissed by the Court.
Decision 52258
Full Text of Decision 52258
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dishonesty |
|
|
Summary:
To avoid paying the 15 cents return, claimant wilfully sold beer at $3.00 instead of $2.85. He was fired. BOR did not establish misconduct because there was no theft, no criminal action, and there was no police report. False premise according to Umpire. Employee must justify any deliberate and conscious action that would prejudice the integrity of his functions.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
merit of dismissal |
|
|
Decision 49361
Full Text of Decision 49361
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dishonesty |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant dismissed for theft of $20,000 from her employer to meet her cocaine needs. Alleged that she was not responsible for her actions since she was continually under the influence of the cocaine and suffered from a drug-induced illness. BOR allowed the claimant's appeal based on the fact that the person had put her life in order and ruled that the employer should have proceeded on a gradual punitive basis. Error according to the Umpire. Nothing in the file to relieve the claimant of responsibility for the repeated crimes that she admitted having committed.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
alcohol, drugs and gambling |
|
|
| misconduct |
substance abuse |
|
|
Decision 48239
Full Text of Decision 48239
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dishonesty |
|
|
Summary:
Decision 46150
Full Text of Decision 46150
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dishonesty |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant dismissed for eating company product which was considered to be theft by the employer. Claimant is of the view that the infraction is minor, that his dismissal was excessive punishment and that the employer had not follow the employee handbook. Appeal denied by BOR and Umpire. Misconduct is a question of law and severity of the result of such a finding is not the proper question to be addressed by either a BOR or an Umpire.
Decision 43462
Full Text of Decision 43462
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dishonesty |
|
|
Summary:
Dismissed because of a breach of her fiduciary relationship with the hospital. The employer produced computer, telephone and fax records which make it clear that the claimant did considerable work for another employer during her employment with the Laurentian Hospital. She failed to disclose this alternate employment to the hospital. Claimant lost 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 42431
Full Text of Decision 42431
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dishonesty |
|
|
Summary:
Counsel for claimant maintained that as long as the determining factor in dismissal is theft, the theft should be established by criminal conviction. Umpire refuted this argument, saying that, even without a conviction, misconduct based on lack of integrity or dishonesty may lead to dismissal within the meaning of the Act.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
criminal acts |
|
|
| misconduct |
theft |
|
|
Decision A-0210.96
Full Text of Decision A-0210.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dishonesty |
|
|
Summary:
Unethical behaviour on the part of the claimant, who resigned. The Umpire found that the claimant had put herself in a situation in which it was impossible for her to keep her job. She had a duty to be loyal. Working conditions had indeed become difficult, but the claimant was largely responsible for that state of affairs. The claimant was in breach of her obligation not to deliberately make a risk become a reality. Appeal summarily dismissed by the FCA.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
correction to consider |
|
Decision A-0732.95
Full Text of Decision A-0732.95
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dishonesty |
|
|
Summary:
The FCA recognized that the claimant was less than forthright with his employer when confronted with the allegation that he held overlapping employment with another employer and which could have prevented him from fulfilling all of his contractual obligations. However, the BOR held that the claimant's conduct did not amount to misconduct which would warrant dismissal. The FCA held that the BOR had proper regard to the evidence and its findings could not be disturbed.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Decision 28819
Full Text of Decision 28819
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dishonesty |
|
|
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.
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 |
definition |
|
|
| misconduct |
breach of rules |
|
|
Decision 26929
Full Text of Decision 26929
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dishonesty |
|
|
Summary:
Fired for improperly taking lottery tickets. The Board found that the transgressions were minor. There can be no doubt that theft, no matter how minor in nature, is misconduct. The act of theft was wilful and was done with the knowledge that it was wrong.
Decision 24215
Full Text of Decision 24215
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dishonesty |
|
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0225.94
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
definition |
|
|
| misconduct |
merit of dismissal |
|
|
| 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 |
dishonesty |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant lost his job with the Corps of Commissionnaires because he shared an unclaimed amount of $40 with the 12-year-old boy who had found the money. Claimant's conduct not above reproach but not of sufficient gravity to constitute misconduct, said the Umpire. Overturned by FC.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
definition |
|
|
| misconduct |
merit of dismissal |
|
|
| misconduct |
questions to examine |
|
|
Decision 25885
Full Text of Decision 25885
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dishonesty |
|
|
Summary:
Dismissed for falsifying her travel reimbursement claims. The Board concluded that she did make an error of judgment but that it was not a deliberate act of dishonesty. CUB 13384 referred to. Held that it is evident that the Board committed an error in law.
Decision 25582
Full Text of Decision 25582
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dishonesty |
|
|
Summary:
CEIC officer dismissed. Charged with defrauding government by falsifying UI benefit claims made by a certain claimant. Held that this was misconduct even though she alleged she acted under duress and threats and that she had been physically assaulted in the early stage of her relationship.
Decision 25336
Full Text of Decision 25336
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dishonesty |
|
|
Summary:
It seems fundamental to state that money cannot be taken from an employer's till even with the best intention of replacing it later. This is a serious error of judgment and unquestionably constitutes misconduct.
Decision 23508
Full Text of Decision 23508
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dishonesty |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant admitted having taken money from the soft drink machine without permission. No one has the right to take money or material belonging to the employer, even with the intention of giving it back later.
Decision 23448
Full Text of Decision 23448
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dishonesty |
|
|
Summary:
The Board seems to equate "alleged fraud" with "misconduct" which is of course a misconception and an error of law. There was no misconduct in respect of the parts unless there was actual, not alleged, fraud. It is not enough that the Board find that there is "alleged fraud".
Decision 21419
Full Text of Decision 21419
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dishonesty |
|
|
Summary:
Took 3 days off work. Had these days input as sick leave rather than vacation. What we have here is an employee who falsified his time sheets. Dishonesty has never been looked on favourably by the Courts. As a Bank Manager, a high degree of honesty and integrity was expected of him.
Decision 21228
Full Text of Decision 21228
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dishonesty |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant was allowed to take money that he had received from customers for products sold so long as he replaced it with personal cheques which turned out to be N.S.F. He was instructed to repay the money or he would be fired. Cash shortages of $3,000. Financial difficulties.
Decision 17675
Full Text of Decision 17675
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dishonesty |
|
|
Summary:
Insurance sales person who provided false information to the insurer of another company to allow her spouse to be insured.
Decision 16345
Full Text of Decision 16345
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dishonesty |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant was charged with theft and pleaded guilty. She had bought 85$ of American money from the business at 2% less than bank rate. Finding of misconduct is proper. Considering the minor amount involved and nature of transaction, disqualification reduced to 3 weeks.
Decision 16148
Full Text of Decision 16148
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dishonesty |
|
|
Summary:
Flight attendant dismissed for taking milk off the plane contrary to regulations. He explained the milk was part of the meal but he did not drink it at the time. The Board found this may not have constituted theft but was a clear infringement of policy.No proof of willfulness.
Decision 15314
Full Text of Decision 15314
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dishonesty |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant held a responsible position with the bank as head teller. A charge of shoplifting certainly would give her employer some serious doubts about her trust and would adversely affect employment relationship. Excellent reputation at bank. Disqualification reduced to 1 week.
Decision 15255
Full Text of Decision 15255
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dishonesty |
|
|
Summary:
Absenteeism and lateness require a pattern of behaviour to be considered misconduct. Misrep or dishonesty, because it goes to the heart of the trust relationship, is much more serious. In many cases, one instance alone justifies termination.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
absences from work |
|
|
Decision 15248
Full Text of Decision 15248
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dishonesty |
|
|
Summary:
Clt with 14 years' service borrowed money from petty cash leaving IOU's. This had been common practice. Board found there was misconduct. Not a deliberate or flagrant disregard of a rule that was not written but implied for one as clt with a position oftrust. Reduced to 1 week.
Decision 14192
Full Text of Decision 14192
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dishonesty |
|
|
Summary:
Stockroom worker; material found in his locker; acknowledged his error; 30 years service; ultimately taken back on job; disqualified for 6 weeks. Certainly no reason to rescind this decision.
Decision 13384
Full Text of Decision 13384
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dishonesty |
|
|
Summary:
Bank loans officer transferred to another city disqualified for 5 weeks. He submitted a false expense account and by so doing breached the trust placed in him by his employer.
Decision 12555
Full Text of Decision 12555
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dishonesty |
|
|
Summary:
Cleaning woman at Eaton in possession of items without colour of right. No criminal charge laid. Disqualification reduced from 6 weeks to 2.
Decision 11648
Full Text of Decision 11648
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dishonesty |
|
|
Summary:
Spotted by 3 security guards putting bottles of wine in someone's bag. Claimant was refused to cross-examine guards. Evidence adduced is hearsay upon hearsay which has been challenged on every relevant point. Cause of dismissal may have been suspicion only.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Decision 10680
Full Text of Decision 10680
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dishonesty |
|
|
Summary:
2 tape recorders listed as missing were found in claimant's briefcase. Claimant suspended without pay pending investigation and trial on criminal charges.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
criminal acts |
|
|
Decision 10639
Full Text of Decision 10639
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dishonesty |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant had dental work done for which he filed a claim. Employer's insurance company paid monies directly to claimant who, in turn, did not pay the dentist for services performed. Dismissal later changed into suspension. Not the type of misconduct intended by UI.
