Summary of Issue: Incompetence

Decision 76093 Full Text of Decision 76093

The claimant worked for a pharmaceutical manufacturer and was familiar with his job duties as well as the policies and procedures. He was dismissed on April 13, 2009 for his willful failure to observe the proper policies and procedures as a result of an incident where an improper procedure occurred. He and a new employee were working together when he transferred a product to the wrong tote. The claimant tried to cover up the error but the new employee felt an error had been made and approached the supervisor. The representative of the manufacturer stated that the product improperly handled that day was contaminated and could cause severe physical harm to affected individuals. The claimant had received previous warnings about his failure to observe proper procedure. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed.

Decision 64285 Full Text of Decision 64285

The evidence shows that the claimant was dismissed because of two mistakes on record and the quality of his work was not up to what was required by the employer during a period of three years while the claimant worked as an apprentice. The judge concluded that there was insufficient evidence to find that the claimant was guilty of misconduct under the Act.

Decision 40727 Full Text of Decision 40727

Umpire did not find that misconduct could be construed on the claimant's performance. Dissatisfaction with one's work does not mean that the person is guilty of misconduct. BOR has misconstrued the jusriprudence concerning misconduct and therefore has made an error in law in this case.

Decision 37306 Full Text of Decision 37306

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.

Decision 35892 Full Text of Decision 35892

Poor work performance although grounds for discipline or dismissal is not misconduct under the Act. The BOR rightly distinguished between the right of an employer to dismiss an employee whom the employer considers to be unsatisfactory and misconduct justifying refusal of benefits.

Decision 26446 Full Text of Decision 26446

Nothing indicates that the claimant acted maliciously, intentionnaly or deliberately. She perhaps did not have, or no longer had, the skills required for her job. The negligence was not deliberate; what was involved was incompetence rather than deliberate misconduct.

Decision 14489 Full Text of Decision 14489

The employer refers to poor work performance, incompetence and inaptitude; this cannot constitute misconduct.