Summary of Issue: Refusal To Work Overtime

Decision 72118 Full Text of Decision 72118

The claimant worked for an oxygen distribution company. Employees were asked repeatedly to be on call for several additional hours. The employer informed the claimant that he had to be on call one week out of six. The claimant refused and was dismissed. The claimant refused to do tasks that were part of his duties as he felt his employer¿s requirements were unreasonable. The claimant's refusal to comply was deliberate. The claimant had to explain why his employer's requirements were unreasonable, he did not do so. There was a breach in the employer-employee relationship. The claimant's actions constituted misconduct. The Umpire rescinded the BOR's decision and the employer's appeal is allowed.

Decision 29199 Full Text of Decision 29199

In the absence of concrete evidence that the working of overtime was a requirement under the contract of employment (be that an oral contract or a written one), I am not prepared to conclude that a refusal to work on that Friday was a decision the claimant was not entitled to make.

Decision 26219 Full Text of Decision 26219

There was sufficient proof of misconduct to warrant the conclusion arrived at by the Board: the refusal of the claimant to work overtime after she had clearly undertaken to do so constitutes misconduct within the meaning of the UI Act and jurisprudence.

Decision 24293 Full Text of Decision 24293

Claimant appears to have decided in advance of his illness that he would not report for work and yet he let his employer assume that he could be counted on for Saturday overtime. In a company where there are only 3 employees, failure to notify the employer ahead of time constituted wilful disregard.