Summary of Issue: Improper Language

Decision 76257 Full Text of Decision 76257

The claimant was dismissed he had been abusive towards his manager. He had two previous incidents of being verbally abusive and/or aggressive for which he had received warnings. The employer provided copies of the warnings. The claimant says he had asked questions and he did not agree that this constitutes aggressive behaviour of misconduct. He suggested that the employer was guilty of trying to muzzle employees who ask questions pertaining to working conditions. The Board noted that the claimant had acknowledged being aware of the employer's Violence in the Workplace Policy and that he had signed the warnings he had received. The Board concluded that the claimant's repeated aggressiveness at his workplace, even after receiving warnings, constituted misconduct. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed by the Umpire.

Decision 75315 Full Text of Decision 75315

On Sunday, November 8, 2009, one of the employer's vehicles broke down because wheel lug nuts had not been properly tightened. The employer spoke by radio and was heard at all of the employer's locations. He used inappropriate and profane language to which the employee responded to. The employer considered that to be disrespectful and ordered the claimant to report to the office that day. He did not do so. When he did not report for work on Monday (day off) the employer decided to dismiss the claimant. The employer's appeal is dismissed.

Decision 75055 Full Text of Decision 75055

The claimant lost his employment after having worked for the employer for fifteen years. In the past two years, things had been different as a result of the arrival of a new engineer. The claimant admitted that, one day, upon seeing how frustrated his two supervisors were with the new engineer, he had said that someone should put a bullet through the engineer's head. The claimant admitted that he should not have said such things and claimed that he had made an error in judgement. A consistent line of authority holds that aggressive behaviour in the workplace constitutes misconduct within the meaning of the Act. The claimant’s appeal is dismissed by the Umpire.

Decision 72192 Full Text of Decision 72192

Ms. X was employed by a company owned or operated by her sister and brother-in-law. She was dismissed following a verbal confrontation between her on the one hand, her sister and brother-in-law on the other. Ms. X admits she swore and used foul language. Information from the employer was to the effect that Ms. X had problems working with a co-employee. Employer states that what was supposed to be a constructive meeting to solve a problem with the claimant escalated into a verbal "attack and a lot of terrible comments". Claimant was verbally warned that her language and swearing would not be tolerated and the meeting disintegrated in to a personal shouting match between the 2 sisters. Claimant was dismissed at that time. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed.

Decision 72305 Full Text of Decision 72305

The employer terminated the claimant's employment on October 18, 2007 after 17 years of service. The employer reprimanded the claimant for making comments that were out of place and unacceptable, namely, "If I were at war, I would shoot at Mr. X and I would make sure not to miss". Mr. X is the director of the distribution centre. The employer stated that he had intervened several times since 1999 and also suspended the employee twice without pay in October 2003 and March 2007. The claimant was asked several times to change his behaviour because he had a negative attitude and was sometimes nasty and threatening towards his work colleagues and his superiors. Despite requests from his employer to change his behaviour, the claimant did not do so and thus brought about his own dismissal. The claimant's appeal is dismissed.

Decision 72139 Full Text of Decision 72139

The claimant worked in a residence for senior citizens; during a Norwalk epidemic which required more sanitary care. He is alleged to have had difficulties with an elderly patient who was more difficult than others. The resulting complaint was to the effect the claimant used physical and verbal abuse on the resident and excessive force, yelling at him and struggling while changing his bedding and soiled clothing. Two other care aides witnessed the event on a 97 years of age resident. Others complained about the behaviour on the nightshift. The employer has a "no abuse" policy and a "no restraint" facility. The claimant's actions constituted misconduct as defined by the law. The BOR finds that the claiming lost his employment because of his own misconduct. The Umpire confirms the decision of the BOR and rejects the appeal from the claimants.

Decision 71559 Full Text of Decision 71559

The claimant was dismissed from his employment for misconduct. The claimant was involved in an incident in which he referred to his team leaders as "Nazis" and made Nazi gestures to them. He further alluded to the fact that management was behaving as if they were yielding handguns and German Shepherds in managing employees, comparing them to Nazis. He defends such behaviour as free speech. However, free speech does not include using disparaging remarks which cannot be proven. Freedom extends to a person's action as long as it does not infringe the rights of another person or that the free speech exercised in a reasonable and moderate way does not offend the values of others. While the offensive gesture and remarks occurred over a two-day period and is not a single outburst, to my mind, it did not represent free speech. The appeal is dismissed.

Decision 70442 Full Text of Decision 70442

The employer has a zero-tolerance policy detailing response to threats or incidents of violence in the workplace. The claimant made a verbal threat to "get a gun" with reference to the "Virginia Tech thing". The claimant was aware of the employer's policy and made comments in breach of his employer's policy on treats of violence in the workplace for which he was dismissed.

Decision 65454 Full Text of Decision 65454

Claimant was dismissed for using foul language in the workplace. There was a policy with respect to the use of such language at the premises of the employer which clearly stated that continued use of foul language will result in termination of employment. The Umpire stated the evidence was overwhelming that the claimant used foul language at his place of work, and granted the Commission appeal.

Decision 55065 Full Text of Decision 55065

Mumbling to himself but heard by one or two individuals, the claimant said that he was going to kill her female supervisor. Claimant acknowledged having said the alleged words but maintained that they were said in a moment of frustration and after being provoked. Held that the issuance of such a serious threat in the workplace constitutes a very serious incidence that the employer could rightly take in the most serious manner.

Decision 48790 Full Text of Decision 48790

Claimant was swearing at people. He was given the opportunity to apologize but refused. The use of language which is grossly inappropriate does not necessarily have to violate any policy; it is the standard of human decency which governs. If there cannot be respect between sexes, there can be no trust, and the trust required between an employer and an employee is fundamentally breached in an irrevocable way. Such a practice constitutes misconduct.

Decision 39756 Full Text of Decision 39756

Claimant's employment was terminated because she lost her temper and admitted that she directed abusive and profane language at her employer. Whatever the provocation, obscene and abusive language directed to an employer constitutes misconduct.

Decision 26926 Full Text of Decision 26926

Claimant had a verbal altercation at time of discharge and had had 2 previous warnings for such altercations with other employees. That is misconduct. Provocation due to the other employee does not detract from the reasonable inference that there was misconduct wilfully entered into by claimant.

Decision A-0236.94 Full Text of Decision A-0236.94

Claimant admits uttering the obscenity after being provoked; this isolated incident on the part of a teacher provoked by a male student had no material bearing on his efficacy; the incident was minor and insignificant and not just cause for dismissal, said the Umpire. Overturned by FC.

Decision 20939 Full Text of Decision 20939

Truck driver who, while on a business trip to a subsidiary company in the USA, made comments about the hiring of racial minorities. These comments were uncalled for and were very offensive to employees present there.

Decision 19010 Full Text of Decision 19010

As a taxi driver, one is in constant contact with the public and rude or aggressive behaviour or profanity could certainly be detrimental to the employer's interests. 6-week disqualification upheld. Repeated record of misconduct and received warnings.

Decision 18676 Full Text of Decision 18676

In my opinion, stated in the context of an argument, directed to his supervisor, in the presence of the manager and perhaps other employees, an obscenely worded accusation, true or not, is evidence of insubordination.

Decision 14193 Full Text of Decision 14193

Refer to: A-1040.87

Decision A-1040.87 Full Text of Decision A-1040.87

Brewery worker who used abusive language towards employer. Upheld by FC without comment.

Decision 14622 Full Text of Decision 14622

I agree that, in the circumstances of this matter, for the claimant to have called the manager a liar would have amounted to misconduct.