Summary of Issue: Loss Of Employment

Decision 75604 Full Text of Decision 75604

The claimant lost his employment by reason of his own misconduct. The claimant was in treatment for a gambling addiction and was therefore rehired by the employer on the condition that he not borrow money from co-workers. The Employer confirmed the claimant was a great worker but his gambling problem distracted him from his work. He was told that he would be fired if he asked other employees for money and the claimant agreed not to do so. The claimant visited an employee's home seeking a loan; he was dismissed the next day. The appeal by the claimant was dismissed by the Umpire

Decision 32393 Full Text of Decision 32393

Beneficiary suspended: came to work inebriated. Board receives the appeal, and concludes that the beneficiary was just suspended; he did not lose his job. Decision reversed by the umpire. The jurisprudence is consistent: suspension from a job is equivalent to loss of that job.

Decision 29095 Full Text of Decision 29095

The Board seems to have taken the view that one who is suspended has not lost his employment. That is an error of law. S. 28 applies to one who loses his employment, either permanently as a result of dismissal or temporarily as a result of a disciplinary suspension, by reason of his misconduct.

Decision 27612 Full Text of Decision 27612

When his licence was suspended, claimant sought and obtained a leave of absence for one year because he could not operate a motor vehicle. It is a reversible error of law to conclude that, because he was on a layoff period as opposed to being terminated, the conviction does not amount to misconduct.

Decision 26325 Full Text of Decision 26325

In the broad sense of the term, employment implies that an employee performs work and receives pay from his employer. Loss of employment in s. 28 may result either from a suspension or a dismissal, as Parliament did not see fit to make a distinction.

Decision 26001 Full Text of Decision 26001

The jurisprudence is clear that a period of suspension is tangible proof of misconduct. The Board erred in law when it refused to equate suspension to a loss of employment and accordingly made an erroneous finding of fact.

Decision 24276 Full Text of Decision 24276

The Board found that the 3-week suspension was not a loss of employment. Error in law. The evidence was clear that he left work without explanation and the law is clear that the resulting suspension constituted a loss of employment (CUB 21951). However, this does not dispose of the matter.

Decision 22724 Full Text of Decision 22724

The Board found that even the minimum disqualification was out of proportion but had no option but to ensure that the legislation be applied. While it cannot be said that claimant "lost his employment", the suspension may have caused him to lose work for 2 days. The Board correctly applied the law.

Decision 22646 Full Text of Decision 22646

The Board erred in law in dismissing the appeal on the basis that the breach of rules resulted in suspension rather than dismissal. A loss of employment within the meaning of s. 28 includes a suspension as well as a final dismissal. (See CUB 21645)

Decision 22270 Full Text of Decision 22270

The jurisprudence is clear that loss of employment as defined in ss.28(1) is not limited to a final dismissal, but will also include a suspension (CUBs 21645, 1345, 2839, 3800, 4423, 7469A and 11220). The Board was correct in its conclusion.

Decision 21951 Full Text of Decision 21951

Suspended 3 days for misconduct. Disqualified for 7 weeks with reduction of benefit rate. I am not convinced that the Board erred in law in concluding that a 3-day suspension with a subsequent return to work cannot be considered a cessation of employment as contemplated in 28(1).

Decision 21645 Full Text of Decision 21645

Railway worker who alleges that he had not lost his job but that he had only been suspended without pay. Loss of employment under s. 28 is not limited to a final dismissal, but will also include a suspension. Thus a disqualification can apply in the case of a suspension.

Decision 10944A Full Text of Decision 10944A

According to insured, suspension not loss of employment. I cannot concur in this argument. Loss of employment equals loss of earnings; this is what sets UI wheels in motion. Inconceivable that suspension could remove from s. 41.

Decision 11220 Full Text of Decision 11220

Is employee subject to suspension presumed to have lost employment within meaning of 28(1)? It seems to me that during period of suspension deemed to have lost employment for purposes of Act and subject to disqualification. Consenting to a suspension is, in my view, prima facie an admission of misconduct and in fact prima facie proof thereof. [obiter dictum]