Summary of Issue: Own Misconduct

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 77597 Full Text of Decision 77597

The claimant stated he was dismissed because the foreperson failed to take into consideration a medical certificate. The employer terminated the claimant because he falsified a medical certificate in order to receive statutory holiday pay. The claimant went to see his doctor to obtain a medical certificate, but then changed the date on the certificate. The Commission determined that the claimant’s action, namely, falsifying a medical certificate constituted misconduct within the meaning of the EI Act, because the action was fraudulent. The claimant's appeal is dismissed by the Umpire.

Decision A0462.10 Full Text of Decision A0462.10

The claimant was employed as a cash room operator by G4S Cash Services Limited where she received and counted cash deposits and entered the amounts on a computerized system. On May 5, 2009, there was a discrepancy of $3,000 between the amount collected from a client and the final figure entered on Ms. Masic’s computer. Following a security investigation, her employment was terminated on May 14, 2009. After a work-place investigation, the claimant's employment was terminated. The BOR found that the claimant had failed to inform and consult her supervisor as required, failed to follow proper procedure in entering amounts of money, and failed to report that she had minused out $3,000 from the deposit. The BOR estimated that Ms. Masic’s mishandling of $3,000 constituted a breach of such scope that it was so reckless as to constitute misconduct. The FCA held that that the BOR correctly interpreted the legal test.

Decision 76138 Full Text of Decision 76138

The claimant had refused to sign an employee contract with clause number 21 prohibiting employees from participating in demonstrations against the employer. She stated that she had worked for her employer for some 32 years and that her previous employee contract had not contained any clause comparable to the new proposed clause 21. The contract stated that an employee who refused to abide by a reasonable request of his employer, such as signing an agreement, is dismissed. The claimant has lost her employment as a result of her own misconduct. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed by the Umpire.

Decision 74770 Full Text of Decision 74770

The Commission determined that the claimant lost his employment due to his misconduct. Also, that it cannot pay him benefits from March 25, 2009 to March 30, 2009 because he was in a prison and cannot pay sickness from March 25 and March 26, 2009 because he had not proven that he would be available for work if he were not sick. According to the employer, the claimant was dismissed because he was in violation of two conditions of his Last Chance Agreement with the company namely being incarcerated and unavailable for work. The claimant was absent with a doctor's note for March 25 and 26, he not available for work on March 29 and 30, could have returned to work on March 31, but he only contacted the employer on April 1st. The claimant’s appeal is dismissed by the Umpire.

Decision A-0720.01 Full Text of Decision A-0720.01

The claimant was disqualified for loosing his employment, being incacerated and then being prevented by his conditional release from leaving the province and thus from going to work. The Court concluded that the claimant lost his employment by virtue of his own misconduct because failure to pay his fines was of his own doing.

Decision 52574 Full Text of Decision 52574

Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0720.01

Decision 23050 Full Text of Decision 23050

The Board is correct in saying that the misconduct must have been committed by claimant. The fact however that others may also have been negligent does not absolve claimant from responsibility unless the conduct of that other is such as to make claimant's conduct not wilful, negligent or careless.

Decision 22544 Full Text of Decision 22544

S. 28 speaks of the claimant's "own" misconduct. If that emphasized word was not expressed, s. 28 would mean the same as it does. So why is it included? It is included for emphasis. To invoke s. 28, there must be proof of the "claimant's misconduct" and nothing else will do.

Decision A-0433.82 Full Text of Decision A-0433.82

Participation of claimant in the illegal strike of hospital workers was his own misconduct... Misconduct by many is no less one's misconduct.

Decision A-0434.82 Full Text of Decision A-0434.82

Participation of claimant in the illegal strike of hospital workers was her own misconduct... Misconduct by many is no less one's misconduct.