Summary of Issue: Insubordination

Decision T1055.18 Full Text of Decision T1055.18

Mr. Dubeau was dismissed for insubordination and unsatisfactory work. Based on the information obtained from Mr. Dubeau and the CSRS, the Employment Insurance Commission informed Mr. Dubeau that he was not entitled to regular employment insurance benefits because he had lost his job for misconduct. The General Division concluded that it was Mr. Dubeau’s conduct which led to his dismissal.Mr. Dubeau filed an application seeking leave to appeal this decision before the Social Security Tribunal’s Appeal Division. The Appeal Division refused to grant the applicant leave to appeal the decision rendered by the General Division. The Associate Chief Justice found that the Appeal Division did not err in concluding that the applicant’s appeal did not raise a question of jurisdiction, fact or law with some reasonable chance of success. The application for judicial review will therefore be dismissed.

Decision 75945 Full Text of Decision 75945

The claimant was dismissed from his employment for misconduct. The claimant does not deny that both parties were yelling at each other and that some "harsh words" were exchanged. The letter of termination stated the claimant was dismissed for insubordination, harassment and wishing harm to his electrical manager. The Commission concluded that the claimant had been dismissed because of misconduct and refused to pay him benefit. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed by the Umpire.

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 76044 Full Text of Decision 76044

The claimant says he voluntarily left his employment. The employer says he dismissed the employee after he had a verbal exchange at work by making death threats with a knife in hand pointed at a fellow employee. He then, repeated verbal threats to the foreperson present at the time. The employer’s decision is based on the employee file, which is replete with incidents reflecting aggressive behaviour and disrespect for your co-workers and employer. The appeal by the Commission is allowed.

Decision 75734 Full Text of Decision 75734

The claimant was dismissed after her involvement in a fight with a co-worker, this being the second incident involving the two. The claimant and her co-worker had been warned and knew that the employer had a zero tolerance policy for this type of incident. The co-worker was also dismissed as a result of these incidents. The Commission concluded that the claimant' s engagement in a physical altercation with her co-worker on company property after a first reprimand for the same reasons constituted a breach of the employer' s zero tolerance policy forming part of the employment contract and resulted in a misconduct justifying the dismissal. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed.

Decision 75006 Full Text of Decision 75006

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.

Decision 74654 Full Text of Decision 74654

The claimant was advised that he had been dismissed because his employer accused him of using alcohol and or drugs. The company has a "zero tolerance" policy with regard to alcohol and drugs in order to ensure the safety and security of the vessel. The day before the vessel arrived in Duluth, Min. the Captain warned the crew not to have any liquor on board as the Customs Officers were coming on board. The claimant's room was searched and a ¼ bottle of liquor was found. The claimant admitted to owning it. The claimant was issued a warning and suspension and 2 weeks later was dismissed. The claimant has admitted that he was aware of the policy. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed by the Umpire.

Decision 73865A Full Text of Decision 73865A

In the employer's opinion, the claimant was dismissed for acquiring and selling to the employer's customers the same merchandise that the employer was selling. The claimant explained that he sold clothing that was completely different from the clothing his employer sold. The Commission determined that the claimant's behaviour, namely, the fact that he had set up a business in competition with his employer, constituted misconduct because it broke the bond of trust between the claimant and his employer. The claimant explained that there was no contract of employment had been signed with the employer that included a ban on selling products. The products sold by the claimant for his own profit were also promotional products with the Montreal Canadiens. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed.

Decision 72471 Full Text of Decision 72471

The claimant was fired for misconduct because she allegedly allowed her common-law partner, to enter the residence. The claimant allowed her spouse to provide personal hygiene care to female clients, who became very uncomfortable when they saw the stranger. Numerous complaints were later filed and the claimant was dismissed. In a very well set-out decision, the Board of Referees concluded that the claimant was aware of the employer's legitimate and reasonable guidelines. For these reasons, the claimant's appeal was dismissed by the Umpire.

Decision 64322 Full Text of Decision 64322

The claimant was terminated for breach of company policy, performance problems and insubordination. The judge stated that in order to constitute misconduct, the conduct in question must have been wilful or at least of such a careless or negligent nature that one could say the employee wilfully disregarded the effects his or her actions would have on job performance. He agreed with the Board's decision and was satisfied that the claimant's wilful actions constituted misconduct and led to her loss of employment.

Decision 49373 Full Text of Decision 49373

Claimant dismissed when he failed to abide by the conditions of his employment by refusing to take a urine test to determine whether of not he had prohibited drugs in his body. By refusing to submit to a drug test, the claimant acted wilfully. He was employed as a truck driver and he knew that his job specification required that he submit to such tests.

Decision 42073 Full Text of Decision 42073

On three consecutive days claimant refused to follow the instruction to leave the task in which he was engaged to do some pipe bending. On the last occasion he was dismissed. Umpire concluded that the employer had a right to expect claimant to comply with a reasonable order, and refusal amounts to insubordination which is conduct amounting to misconduct.

Decision 41355 Full Text of Decision 41355

Claimant was caught asleep on the job by a supervisor, who submitted that this is wilful misconduct. BOR found that each witness was credible and decided that the claimant should have the advantage. Umpire found that based on the evidence, claimant had a history of insubordination, particularly sleeping on the job. He concluded that BOR has made in error of law and of fact and that there was misconduct on the claimant's part.

Decision 40789 Full Text of Decision 40789

Claimant's decision to drive in disobedience of instructions to await for repairs to a tire indicates a disregard of a standard of behaviour that his employer had a right to expect of him. His conduct was incompatible with his duty to his employer to preserve his equipment and that conduct manifested misconduct.

Decision 40567 Full Text of Decision 40567

Claimant refused to carry out instructions to re-print a pamphlet with the original changes made by the director together with some of the claimant's changes. Umpire found that her refusal to comply and to insist that the pamphlet be re-printed in her style was an act of defiance and can only be characterized as misconduct calling for dismissal. Her conduct was wilful and manifested a disregard of a standard of behaviour which an employer has a right to expect of an employee.

Decision 39691 Full Text of Decision 39691

A record of disciplinary infractions or insubordination is not necessarily misconduct, but when coupled with a request for a meeting to discuss and correct the situation which is ignored, it triggers the issue of misconduct under s. 28 and justifies a dismissal.

Decision A-0574.96 Full Text of Decision A-0574.96

Her employer being away on vacation, the claimant refused work that the accountant asked her to do, alleging that her employer had not indicated such work to her. An altercation ensued, and the next day, the claimant refused to return to work, wishing to await her employer’s return. The Umpire upheld the decision that the claimant had not acted like a prudent person and should have been more conciliating. Application for judicial review was summarily dismissed by the FCA.

Decision 30751 Full Text of Decision 30751

Meeting scheduled over the lunch hour; despite being expressly told to attend, claimant did not attend the meeting and was fired. Claimant's conduct found justified. Error in law to conclude that disobedience of an order in violation of the Employment Standards Act amounted to insubordination.

Decision 25456 Full Text of Decision 25456

Claimant had a verbal altercation with his supervisor that resulted in imprecations being thrown around. And he was dared to walk off the job 15 minutes early, and stupidly did so. It seems a much too trifling matter to result in being fired (after 14 years). I believe there was no misconduct.