Summary of Issue: Questions To Examine

Decision 55140 Full Text of Decision 55140

The BOR erred in finding that the element of willfulness had not been proven. Not necessary for the BOR members to delve in the claimant's mind as to why he would disregard the number of warnings regarding his coming to work in an inebriated state. He did chose to drink and to come to work in an unfit condition. This, if not an indication of willfulness, is surely an indication of "recklessness as to approach willfulness" to use the words of the FCA in Tucker (A-0381.85).

Decision A-0006.98 Full Text of Decision A-0006.98

It was determined that the claimant had been dismissed as a result of her own misconduct. Contrary to the employer's instructions, she had cooked a chicken without defrosting or washing it and without removing the bag of giblets. FCA found that neither the Umpire nor the BOR questioned whether the frozen chicken incident, considering the explanation provided by the claimant, was a sufficiently serious breach to constitute misconduct within the meaning of the Act. The matter was thus referred back to the Umpire for reconsideration.

Decision A-0875.96 Full Text of Decision A-0875.96

Claimant started working as a truck driver in 02-94. In 06-94, claimant advised the employer that he could not carry on working as a driver: licence suspended for an offence committed in 07-93 i.e. seven months before he started to work. In a majority decision, the FCA held that claimant had lost his job without just cause. **In Nolet (A-517-91), the Court was stressing the need for there to be a causal nexus between the misconduct and the termination. It recognized that if there were no such nexus, a claimant with a criminal record could never qualify for benefits under the Act, even if his or her loss of employment was unrelated to the criminal offences committed in the past. The case does not say that misconduct related to an event which occurred prior to the employment relationship, the punishment for which occurs during an employment relationship, and which causes the employee to be unable to perform his or her job can never be a cause for disqualification under S.28.

Decision 36064 Full Text of Decision 36064

It was not the Board of Referees' responsibility to take the place of the employer and decide whether the work requirements were justified. Provided these requirements are reasonable, it is the employer's responsibility to determine the importance to be given them. Board erred in law.

Decision 34832 Full Text of Decision 34832

The Board must first identify the conduct which is alleged to constitute misconduct, next find as a fact that the complained-of behaviour was indeed misconduct and finally, determine that the loss of employment resulted from the misconduct.

Decision 25713 Full Text of Decision 25713

Refer to: A-0647.94

Decision A-0647.94 Full Text of Decision A-0647.94

Claimant had to leave work on 2 occasions in order to comply with an order of the Court. The Court of Appeal had to decide whether there was misconduct. If it can be suggested that there is misconduct in leaving work to attend a Court proceeding, the precedent would have to be revised.

Decision 24215 Full Text of Decision 24215

Refer to: A-0225.94

Decision A-0225.94 Full Text of Decision A-0225.94

Our function is not to determine the seriousness of the incident which led to dismissal but whether the employer acted with good reason, said the Board. The Board properly considered the question of misconduct while ignoring the employer's subjective assessment as to whether dismissal was warranted.

Decision 24975 Full Text of Decision 24975

The Board must first identify the conduct which is alleged to constitute misconduct, then it must find as a fact that it was indeed misconduct and, finally, it must decide if the loss of employment resulted from that misconduct (CUBs 19112, 19060 and 18849).

Decision 23851 Full Text of Decision 23851

I do not agree that the decision of the Board indicates that it first found that there was misconduct but that it was "justified". Such a finding would clearly have been an error of law. I understand the decision to provide that the actions of the claimant did not amount to misconduct.

Decision 21645 Full Text of Decision 21645

Most principles applicable to the loss of employment by reason of misconduct are recited in a succinct form by the Umpire in this case.

Decision 21235 Full Text of Decision 21235

What the Board is required to do is to find as a fact whether or not there has been misconduct and if so, state the facts which constitute misconduct and then determine if the claimant lost his or her employment because of that misconduct.

Decision 16547 Full Text of Decision 16547

The Board must find as a fact whether or not there has been misconduct and if so state the facts which constitute the misconduct, then go further and determine whether claimant has lost his employment because of that misconduct.

Decision 13293 Full Text of Decision 13293

Board of referees must first decide unequivocally that dismissal resulted from misconduct, and only after making that finding may it consider length of disqualification.

Decision 12500 Full Text of Decision 12500

The Board held that, under s.7 of the Charter, claimant to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. It is obvious that the Board failed to answer the only question it should have asked itself: Did the employer act in good faith and upon reasonable grounds in dismissing claimant?

Decision 11817 Full Text of Decision 11817

The Board must find whether or not: (1) the acts were committed by claimant; (2) the acts amount to misconduct; and (3) the claimant lost his employment by reason of that misconduct. It cannot deal with the disqualification period until these findings are made.

Decision 11650 Full Text of Decision 11650

The Board agrees that claimant did use ungentlemanly language which he contends is not out of the ordinary, so disqualification reduced from 4 to 3 weeks. Incumbent upon the Board to find first whether claimant's conduct is misconduct. Referred back to the Board.

Decision 11044 Full Text of Decision 11044

Faced with conflicting statements, the Board reduced the disqualification from 6 to 3 weeks. Before a disqualification can be imposed, there must be a finding of misconduct or voluntary leaving. Case returned to Board.