Summary of Issue: Lateness

Decision A0558.12 Full Text of Decision A0558.12

The claimant was dismissed on November 11, 2011. He acknowledged that he got up late on the morning of November 8, 2011, because his alarm clock did not ring. He also acknowledged that he did not notify his employer of his absence because the boat on which he was working had left and he had hoped that his absence would go unnoticed. He had already received several written warnings from his employer, namely, for absenteeism, recurring tardiness and his drug use problem. He had also been subject to disciplinary measures. The Commission informed the claimant that he had lost his employment by reason of his own misconduct. The FCA explained that the BOR had to determine whether the claimant had conducted himself so carelessly that he could not have been unaware that his absence could result in dismissal. The FCA determined that the BOR and the Umpire failed to consider the entire record, including the claimant’s absences and recurring tardiness, in addition to his carelessness, which rendered their decisions unreasonable.

Decision 74804 Full Text of Decision 74804

According to the claimant, he was fired for issuing a complaint via the “intermail” on site. According to the employer, the claimant was in his 6 months probationary period. The claimant did sign the “Attendance and Punctuality Policy” which proves that he knew how important the attendance and punctuality was to the Company. He signed all the written warnings and he was aware of the consequence of what could happen if he did not respect his work schedule. The Commission concluded that claimant’s actions constituted misconduct within the meaning of the Act, because those actions were considered to be so negligent as to be considered wilful. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed by the Umpire.

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 53572 Full Text of Decision 53572

Clearly, the claimant's lateness on numerous occasions was due primarily to family-related organizational issues but it was also sometimes the result of inclement weather or transportation delays. The reasons for her lack of punctuality may elicit genuine sympathy, but they in no way affect the claimant's obligation to show up for work on time, an essential condition in her contract with the employer.

Decision 41470 Full Text of Decision 41470

Dismissed for showing up late for work or not showing up at all with no notice. Umpire found that the claimant’s behaviour could not be considered as voluntary and deliberate within the meaning of the Tucker decision A-0381.85, since the medical report clearly showed that his behaviour was not voluntary but caused by his illness, alcoholism. Therefore, he did not lose his employment because of his own misconduct within the meaning of the Act.

Decision 37118A Full Text of Decision 37118A

Dismissed for having failed to indicate instances of lateness in his daily report. BOR claimed that these actions constituted dishonesty or fraud. Umpire ruled that the BOR had committed an error of law in finding that acts of which the claimant was accused constituted misconduct according to the meaning given to that term in s. 28(1) of the Act, since the claimant’s supervisor was the first person to be informed of his lateness. Consequently, the claimant never intended to rob his employer.

Decision 38905 Full Text of Decision 38905

Dismissed for being late for work. Umpire indicated that for misconduct to be proved, the conduct of which the claimant was accused must be voluntary or deliberate, or be the result of such heedlessness or negligence that it borders on the deliberate. Umpire therefore concluded that the BOR had erred in determining that there had been misconduct within the meaning of the Act. Claimant did not display heedlessness because the circumstances that resulted in his lateness, namely a power failure, were beyond his control.

Decision 38781 Full Text of Decision 38781

Dismissed because he constantly arrived late for work. Umpire concluded that claimant's behavior is unacceptable particularly having regard to the fact that he was given several warnings. Misconduct has been defined as a wilful and wanton disregard of his employer's interest and claimant's conduct falls within that definition. It has been well established that continued tardiness in reporting for work constitutes misconduct.

Decision A-0245.96 Full Text of Decision A-0245.96

Claimant dismissed for being late repeatedly because of car trouble. Claimant's counsel invoqued that car trouble doesn't constitute willfulness or recklessness which are necessary ingredients of misconduct. Held that after numerous informal and formal warnings and suspensions, it does amount to recklessness to continue arriving late. No reviewable error of fact or law found by FCA.

Decision 29449 Full Text of Decision 29449

During his probationary period, the claimant was dismissed for being late on numerous occasions despite being warned. Fewer incidents will justify the dismissal of a probationary employee than might be the case for a long-term employee.

Decision 27761 Full Text of Decision 27761

The claimant's continued lateness after receiving the memo and her absence from work on 14-11-91, without apparent excuse and after having received 2 verbal warnings are more than sufficient to constitute reckless conduct, thereby satisfying the mens rea requirements for misconduct as per TUCKER.

Decision 15934 Full Text of Decision 15934

It has been consistently ruled that arriving continually late for work is misconduct. One must take steps to ensure he is at work at the agreed time, especially if sternly warned. Contending that time of arrival is unimportant provided work is done is not valid.

Decision 12400 Full Text of Decision 12400

Continually late after warnings. This is typical example of individual who loses employment because of own misconduct. Regrettable that Act allows penalty of only 6 weeks in this case.

Decision 11743 Full Text of Decision 11743

In this case, frequently late for work, despite numerous oral and even written warnings, constitute misconduct.

Decision 11043 Full Text of Decision 11043

During a 2-week period, claimant was late or absent a total of 30 hours. Continued lateness was the reason for dismissal. Claimant did not dispute tardiness but said employer knew what she was doing and why she was late, no need to call. 2-week disqualification upheld.

Decision 10664 Full Text of Decision 10664

Late 2 or 3 times a week, warned verbally and in writing, 2 hours late on date of dismissal. Continuous lateness amounts to misconduct especially where claimant has received warnings. No extenuating circumstances to warrant a reduction of the 6 weeks' disqualification.