Summary of Issue: Justification

Decision 72504 Full Text of Decision 72504

The claimant was a retail sales manager. One of her responsibilities was to open the store on time at 10.00 a.m. There is evidence in the record of several dates on which the store opened between eight and 30 minutes late. The employer said it had warned the claimant about her tardiness but it did not have any records of written warnings or of the dates of verbal warnings. On December 4, 2007 the claimant was late again. She says four minutes, the employer says 15 minutes. She says she was late because of a delay on the subway. The employer immediately dismissed her. Whether a claimant lost her employment by reason of her misconduct is a question of mixed law and fact. The standard of review an umpire must apply to the decision of a Board of Referees is that of reasonableness. The BOR accepted her evidence that she was late that day because of a delay in the public transportation system. Thus was not a wilful or deliberate act. That was a reasonable finding. The Umpire dismissed the employer's appeal.

Decision A-1036.96 Full Text of Decision A-1036.96

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.

Decision A0385.11 Full Text of Decision A0385.11

The claimant was dismissed on the ground that he was intoxicated in his room. The employer prohibited drinking in the rooms provided for employees and had a zero-tolerance policy regarding intoxication in the workplace. The claimant indicated that his dismissal was part of an anticipated layoff of some one hundred employees and that the purpose of the disciplinary measure was for the employer to avoid paying for an airline ticket for his return home. The FCA indicated that the Board was justified in taking into account the employer’s practice during similar incidents since these facts confirmed the real cause of the dismissal, that is, the employer dismissed the claimant to avoid having to pay for the claimant’s trip home following an anticipated layoff.

Decision A-0274.05 Full Text of Decision A-0274.05

The claimant was discharged after having been warned many times about, among other things, extending his breaks. He stated that such behaviour was tolerated for other employees and that the employer was hounding him. The jurisprudence has established that misconduct must be objectively evaluated - the criterion being, not to determine if the claimant's discharge was justified or if his behaviour constitutes a valid reason for discharge, but rather to determine if such behaviour constitutes misconduct under the meaning of the EI Act. The Court confirmed the umpire's ruling of restoring the Commission's decision.

Decision 40264 Full Text of Decision 40264

Clmt was caught smoking despite an established company non-smoking policy and previous warning. Clmt’s justification for disregarding company policy because other employees have not been investigated and dismissed for smoking will not excuse his conduct . He erred when he failed to heed the warning and risked termination of his employment if he violated his commitment to remain a non-smoker.

Decision 26704 Full Text of Decision 26704

Argument: only 2 out of 20 or 30 were dismissed. It is long established that the fact that a person in breach of the law or of a working condition cannot avoid disciplinary action or prosecution simply because other persons guilty of the same offence have not been prosecuted or dismissed.

Decision 25462 Full Text of Decision 25462

By giving preferential treatment to some employers, contrary to instructions, it is argued that claimant, a government officer, was merely following the actions put forth by his immediate supervisor as well as other senior officials in the work place. However, the objective misconduct still exists.

Decision 23479 Full Text of Decision 23479

Claimant admitted having unrightfully taken merchandise belonging the employer saying "everybody does it". His offense is even more serious because of his status as union representative. Employer had no alternetive but to dismiss him because of his offense and also to serve as a lesson to the others

Decision 20796 Full Text of Decision 20796

He said that he was not alone in disregarding his employer's rules about maximum weight to be applied in pulling tools, that the engineer working with him committed the same misconduct. As the Board pointed out, misconduct of another employee does not excuse that of claimant.