Summary of Issue: Misjudgment

Decision 75652 Full Text of Decision 75652

The claimant was employed by a casino in a shipping/receiving position. On the day the alleged misconduct occurred, while passing through the kitchen, he is alleged to have touched the food products with his bare hand. He explained; "I went in with my right finger and took a scoop of egg." The claimant admits he may have read directives, in relation to this forbidden practice although he suggested he was not sure. He alleges there is no policy or procedure in place for this type of situation. The appeal is by the claimant is dismissed by the Umpire.

Decision 68281 Full Text of Decision 68281

The claimant was suspended indefinitely because on his day off, he visited his employer's business (liquor store) with a friend, waving a water pistol that appeared to be a real handgun, acting as if to shoot the gun - customers were present in the store at the time - the employer felt that the claimant's behaviour was inappropriate and insensitive given that he had been robbed in the store he worked in.

Decision 50536A Full Text of Decision 50536A

The claimant, a correctional services officer, had developed a romantic relationship with an inmate, contrary to professional ethics. She had also been involved in drug trafficking in the institution. This was considered to be reprehensible behaviour with an inmate on the part of the claimant and, although the claimant was acquitted of the first two charges, the BOR could not ignore the last two charges of which she was found guilty.

Decision 51820 Full Text of Decision 51820

Claimant fired (decision later modified to a suspension) for sending a slanderous message to a co-worker under the name of the most senior officer in the company using the internal e-mail system. BOR found that the dismissal was extreme and that the incident was not malicious. Held by Umpire that the BOR erred in applying the wrong test and in concluding that the company had withdrawn the severe penalty it had imposed. The company did withdraw the full dismissal but maintained a lenghty suspension without pay.

Decision 41770 Full Text of Decision 41770

Clmt altered patient medical orders assuming the doctor had agreed to the changes and in another followed company's policy not to call doctor just to discontinue treatment. Umpire ruled that this act is not only reprehensible act but also a serious breach of the company's policy that could have had serious effects on the health of patients under her care.

Decision 41732 Full Text of Decision 41732

Clmt qualified his behavior towards a female employee as an error in judgement. Umpire stated that an error in judgment occurs by a person, who in the course of his duties, fails to properly balance or assess information available when having to select between two or more alternatives and in the result errs in his selection. Clmt's behavior amounted to miconduct as it was calculated, wilful, deliberate and in violation of the employer's harassment policy.

Decision 30010 Full Text of Decision 30010

The claimant could not be said to have had the requisite mental intent to constitute misconduct. He was not aware that he was breaking company policy. His conduct may have been an error in judgment but it was not misconduct. Extensive review by Umpire of the jurisprudence in the area of misconduct.

Decision 29374 Full Text of Decision 29374

Claimant under pressure to disassemble a drilling rig used an unsafe procedure which caused an incident. Despite seriousness of error, error of judgment does not equate with a wilful act or omission. Honest mistake not to be construed as misconduct.

Decision 25462 Full Text of Decision 25462

Claimant's representative fastens on the referees' sentence that there is no doubt that claimant used bad judgment in his decisions. But his bad judgment was exercised over 5 years. Bad judgment does not necessarily mean a mere mistake. It can also characterize a deliberate infraction.

Decision 25352 Full Text of Decision 25352

Claimant was in a position of trust as a bookkeeper. She took advantage of her position by failing to implement a garnishment against her own wages. An "error of judgment" of the deliberate sort found and admitted here, is no refuge in which to escape clear acts of unmistakable misconduct.

Decision 23097 Full Text of Decision 23097

The head cashier had refused to cash a cheque due to lack of identification. It was more than an error of judgment on the part of claimant to authorize cashing the (stolen) cheque: he failed to follow the proper procedure. This would constitute minsconduct with respect to his UI claim.

Decision 22905 Full Text of Decision 22905

The claimant slightly damaged the truck he was driving as a result of misjudgment on his part, misjudgment which was induced by a misplaced sign on a bridge underpass. This, as an isolated incident, could hardly be classified as misconduct sufficient to justify dismissal.