Decision 71069
Full Text of Decision 71069
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
refusal to obey orders |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant was terminated because he refused to follow a direction to work on a particular machine. The claimant had not advised his employer that he had some restrictions as to what he could do in respect of his physical ability. The machines were of different sizes. The claimant would not attempt to work on a heavy machine because of his physical restrictions. The claimant had refused to carry out normal duties of his occupation. The claimant who was aware of his physical restrictions failed to provide the employer with this information and signed by a physician. That was a breach of trust between the claimant and his employer. The acts of the claimant were wilful because he knew that he should have provided the essential information to his employer so that he could be properly assigned to work. According to the Umpire, the breach of trust in failing to disclose and his failure to carry out work assigned to him without having disclosed his condition to his employer are acts of misconduct.
Decision 55295
Full Text of Decision 55295
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
refusal to obey orders |
|
|
Summary:
Despite warnings, the claimant refused, on the ground that it was not her responsability, to take out the garbage after the manager had instructed her to do so on two consecutive days. Refusing the orders of an employer may constitute misconduct within the meaning of the EI Act. Claimant appeal dimissed.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
obstinance |
|
|
Decision 49373
Full Text of Decision 49373
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
refusal to obey orders |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant dismissed when he failed to abide by the conditions of his employment by refusing to take a urine test to determine whether of not he had prohibited drugs in his body. By refusing to submit to a drug test, the claimant acted wilfully. He was employed as a truck driver and he knew that his job specification required that he submit to such tests.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
insubordination |
|
|
Decision 42073
Full Text of Decision 42073
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
refusal to obey orders |
|
|
Summary:
On three consecutive days claimant refused to follow the instruction to leave the task in which he was engaged to do some pipe bending. On the last occasion he was dismissed. Umpire concluded that the employer had a right to expect claimant to comply with a reasonable order, and refusal amounts to insubordination which is conduct amounting to misconduct.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
insubordination |
|
|
Decision 41770
Full Text of Decision 41770
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
refusal to obey orders |
|
|
Summary:
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.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
damages |
|
|
| misconduct |
misjudgment |
|
|
Decision 40789
Full Text of Decision 40789
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
refusal to obey orders |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant's decision to drive in disobedience of instructions to await for repairs to a tire indicates a disregard of a standard of behaviour that his employer had a right to expect of him. His conduct was incompatible with his duty to his employer to preserve his equipment and that conduct manifested misconduct.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
insubordination |
|
|
Decision 40567
Full Text of Decision 40567
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
refusal to obey orders |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant refused to carry out instrustions to re-print a pamphlet with the original changes made by the director together with some of the claimant's changes. Umpire found that her refusal to comply and to insist that the pamphlet be re-printed in her style was an act of defiance and can only be characterized as misconduct calling for dismissal. Her conduct was wilful and manifested a disregard of a standard of behaviour which an employer has a right to expect of an employee.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
insubordination |
|
|
Decision A-0927.96
Full Text of Decision A-0927.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
refusal to obey orders |
|
|
Summary:
FCA agreed that there was evidence upon which the Umpire, like the BOR could conclude that the claimant was guilty of misconduct. The evidence, indeed, supports the conclusion that the claimant consciously and deliberately refused to comply with his employer's direction to be tested for recertification as a welder and that this was fundamental to his employment as such.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
breach of rules |
|
|
| misconduct |
refusal to see company doctor |
|
|
Decision 39993
Full Text of Decision 39993
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
refusal to obey orders |
|
|
Summary:
A job is not a place where one practices democracy. People cannot do what they like but must obey reasonable orders so the workplace can operate effectively. Rebelling against a reasonable order is guilty of misconduct.
Decision A-0574.96
Full Text of Decision A-0574.96
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
refusal to obey orders |
|
|
Summary:
Her employer being away on vacation, the claimant refused work that the accountant asked her to do, alleging that her employer had not indicated such work to her. An altercation ensued, and the next day, the claimant refused to return to work, wishing to await her employer’s return. The Umpire upheld the decision that the claimant had not acted like a prudent person and should have been more conciliating. Application for judicial review was summarily dismissed by the FCA.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
insubordination |
|
|
| misconduct |
absences from work |
|
|
Decision 26239
Full Text of Decision 26239
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
refusal to obey orders |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant refused to sign a letter of discipline changing his status from permanent to probationary for the next 3 months and warning him against a future deviation from company policies. The Board found that this was misconduct. Held that there was no error in law.
Decision 25461
Full Text of Decision 25461
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
refusal to obey orders |
|
|
Summary:
It was undoubtedly wrong for claimant to lie to his supervisor that he had carried out a direction when he had not done so. It is hard to see this as other than a minor misfeasance in the career of a store manager (7 years) who was hard pressed on a particular day for circumstances beyond control.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
definition |
|
|
Decision 24577
Full Text of Decision 24577
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
refusal to obey orders |
|
|
Summary:
The employer's requirements (two mandatory courses) were neither illegal or immoral and were to be performed during time for which the employer had engaged the claimant and was remunerating him. Who is a probationary employee to be asserting that such training is invalid and inappropriate?
Decision 24256
Full Text of Decision 24256
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
refusal to obey orders |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant was employed by a contractor who supplied services to an institution. She refused an order from the Director of the institution. The Board assumed that the Director has authority over employees in his institution employed by others to perform tasks outside their normal responsibilities.
Decision 21745
Full Text of Decision 21745
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
refusal to obey orders |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant removed his pay cheque from a sealed envelope although he had no right to do so. The fact that he refused to obey the manager's request to hand back his pay cheque which he had taken without permission constitutes misconduct.
Decision 17898
Full Text of Decision 17898
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
refusal to obey orders |
|
|
Summary:
Nowhere does the Board identify exactly what duties she refused to do. The Board's decision looks as though it decided that claimant's behaviour at work was unacceptable merely because the employer said it was. This is not sufficient reason for the decision reached.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Decision 17780
Full Text of Decision 17780
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
refusal to obey orders |
|
|
Summary:
The test was stated in CUB 6666, "the acts of an employee that are such as warrant his discharge as being inconsistent with the due and faithful exercise of his duties". As per BEDELL, the wilful refusal to obey an employer's direction is misconduct.
Decision 17513
Full Text of Decision 17513
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
refusal to obey orders |
|
|
Summary:
As per BEDELL, the wilful refusal to obey an employer's lawful direction is misconduct. The Board's conclusion that claimant's continued insubordination was misconduct, where it involved refusal to carry out the duties expected to perform as teacher, was correct.
Decision 17451
Full Text of Decision 17451
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
refusal to obey orders |
|
|
Summary:
Building superintendent who kept a dog within her apartment which was contrary to the policy of the owners. She failed to dispose of her dog as instructed by letter. Disqualification reduced to 1 week on the ground that her misconduct did not relate to the performance of duties.
Decision 17228
Full Text of Decision 17228
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
refusal to obey orders |
|
|
Summary:
The Commission is correct that a claimant's continued refusal to comply with his employer's legitimate and reasonable request is misconduct. The key words are "legitimate and reasonable". One must also act as a reasonable person would.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
oath of employment |
|
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
Decision 16174
Full Text of Decision 16174
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
refusal to obey orders |
|
|
Summary:
Failed to report for work one day and was observed on a picket line. When summoned to attend interview by employer for an explanation, he availed himself of a technicality and was in open defiance of employer. Reinstated 1 year later. 6-week disqualification reinstated.
Decision 15175
Full Text of Decision 15175
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
refusal to obey orders |
|
|
Summary:
Employers' policies and terms of employment ought to be utterly disregarded when they run so directly contrary to the best in human nature and good sense, and for no good reason or necessity.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
length |
|
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
minimum |
|
Decision 13932
Full Text of Decision 13932
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
refusal to obey orders |
|
|
Summary:
Need to identify conditions under which claimant refused to work, whether refusal under those conditions amounts to misconduct and if claimant lost his employment by reason of that misconduct.
As the employer's letter is not in evidence, I am not in a position to determine its contents and consequently whether it was misconduct on the part of the claimant to refuse to sign it... and whether letter was provocative.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Decision 13783
Full Text of Decision 13783
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
refusal to obey orders |
|
|
Summary:
Head nurse who refused to go to director's office to explain infraction at work.
Decision 13732
Full Text of Decision 13732
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
refusal to obey orders |
|
|
Summary:
The order must relate to the job the employee was hired to do and must be reasonable. An employee must have breached his obligation to his employer in a serious way. One has an absolute right, indeed a duty, to act in an honest fashion, not in terms dictated by the employer.
Decision A-0683.86
Full Text of Decision A-0683.86
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
refusal to obey orders |
|
|
Summary:
An employee has an obligation to obey the directions of his employer. While one act of disobedience will not normally justify dismissal, the cumulative effect of a series of such acts will, said the Umpire. Upheld by FC.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
union activities |
|
|
| misconduct |
change in duties |
|
|
Decision 13670
Full Text of Decision 13670
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
refusal to obey orders |
|
|
Summary:
It is settled that insubordination or refusal to follow instructions or orders given by employer or employer's representative constitutes misconduct.
Decision 12747
Full Text of Decision 12747
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
refusal to obey orders |
|
|
Summary:
Truck driver whose explanation for allegedly refusing a dispatch appears credible and could not be said to have repudiated the contract of employment. No conclusive proof of misconduct.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
| misconduct |
personality conflict |
|
|
| misconduct |
definition |
|
|
Decision 12749
Full Text of Decision 12749
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
refusal to obey orders |
|
|
Summary:
Refer to: A-0683.86
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
union activities |
|
|
| misconduct |
change in duties |
|
|
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
new facts not required |
|
Decision 11267
Full Text of Decision 11267
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
refusal to obey orders |
|
|
Summary:
Apartment building superintendent who refused to spread sand in parking lot due to ice. Whether reasonable turns on credibility. Work manual examined. Some basis for claimant's belief this was not part of her duties. Disqualification reduced to 2 weeks.
Decision 10865
Full Text of Decision 10865
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
refusal to obey orders |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant violated company rule. Injured while wearing safety shoes, he reported this to the nurse but went to work next day without protective footwear. Though this was his first offence [3 weeks' work], he should have been aware. 3-week disqualification upheld.
Decision A-1716.83
Full Text of Decision A-1716.83
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
refusal to obey orders |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant asked by supervisor to report work load twice a day. Initially she neglected to carry out this direction but when employer had decided to dismiss her, she did so but was too late to save her job. Open to Board to find misconduct.
Claimant's wilful refusal to comply with her employer's lawful direction respecting her work as an employee amounted to misconduct.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
definition |
|
|
| board of referees |
constitution of board |
change of members |
|
| board of referees |
errors in law |
meaning of a term |
|
