Summary of Issue: Theft

Decision 76341 Full Text of Decision 76341

The employer confirmed the reason for terminating of his employees was that they had camera evidence that three employees were stealing from the parking meters. This showed that the revenue from the meters had decreased by approximately $2675. The claimant admitted taking the money. However, he added that this practice of taking loose monies from the meters was going on for a long time and was done even before he began working there. The board found that the claimant’s conduct was not willful and reckless because of the practice of sharing monies from outside the can was established before he came to work there. For these reasons they allowed the appeal. The Commission describes the act of theft from your employer is an act which must be considered willful and certainly contrary to the trust that the employer placed in the employee. The appeal by the Commission is allowed.

Decision 76736 Full Text of Decision 76736

The claimant's employment was terminated for alleged theft. The Commission made inquiries of the emplyer as to the circumstances surrounding the dismissal but the employer was unwilling to provide details. The claimant was approved for benefits. Only after the claimant was approved for benefits did the employer provided the Commission with details including that the theft was over $100,000. He had a video tape which showed the claimant loading the product on trucks and taking it. Later on the claimant stood watch as others loaded product on a truck without a work order and delivered the product to the home of the claimant’s cousin. The employer’s witnesses attended and provided what the Board found to be compelling evidence of the claimant’s misdeeds. The Commission asked the BOR to allow the employer's appeal. The Board further found that the claimant's acts were wilful and met the definition of misconduct as defined by the Act. The employer's appeal was unanimously allowed by the BOR. Theft from an employer is serious conduct striking at the heart of the trust required in the employer-employee relationship. The BOR made no error in finding that the claimant's action amounted to misconduct. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed by the Umpire.

Decision A0193.09 Full Text of Decision A0193.09

The claimants were disqualified by the Commission for an indefinite period because they had lost their employment due to their own misconduct. They were dismissed by their employer because he determined that they had consumed merchandise (food products) contrary to the policy in this regard. For their part, the claimants indicated that despite the policy in this regard, food consumption was tolerated. The BOR concluded that the claimants had not lost their employment due to their own misconduct. The Umpire upheld the decision stating that the claimants involved could not suspect that their behaviour would jeopardize their employment, given that this behaviour had long been tolerated. The FCA concluded that there was no error in the Umpire's statements with respect to the applicable principle in matters of misconduct and that the Umpire could make this finding based on the evidence. Similar cases: A0189.09, A0190.09, A0191.09, A0194.09 and A0195.09

Decision 75180 Full Text of Decision 75180

The appellant was dismissed on August 21, 2007, for having misappropriated $22,000 from her employer, funds intended for student activities. She acknowledged having taken the money, but considered it a loan because she intended to reimburse it. The claimant stated that at the time of the incident, she was unaware of her actions. To make her point, she submitted a letter from a psychiatrist describing her health at the time of the incidents. Over a number of months, the claimant accidentally stole a significant amount of money from her employer without the employer's knowledge. The claimant admitted to taking the money to help her boyfriend. The case law confirms that even if the claimant intended to repay the money in question, the action still constitutes misconduct within the meaning of the Act. The Commission's appeal is allowed by the Umpire.

Decision 75036 Full Text of Decision 75036

The employer dismissed the claimant because he had done some work on the side for one of the employer's customers and had kept the money. The work was done during the claimant's working hours with equipment and products belonging to the employer. The employer considered the claimant's conduct to be theft. The claimant had since reimbursed the employer, who had deducted $145.00 from his last paycheque to make up for the loss caused by the claimant's actions. Claimant stated that the incident was the only one of its kind during his entire period of employment. At the time of the alleged incident, the claimant needed $30.00 to buy groceries. The Commission's appeal is allowed by the Umpire.

Decision 74555 Full Text of Decision 74555

The claimant was working at the X mine site in Labrador and when leaving the site he managed to sneak a bucket of hardware onto the plane. The claimant admitted that he removed these items from the job site without permission and that he did sneak the items onto the plane after sneaking them through security. The Board found that the claimant in this case knowingly knew that to remove items from the job site was wrong, and therefore his own actions were definitely deliberate and wilful which resulted in his dismissal in his employment and constituted misconduct. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed.

Decision A-0441.05 Full Text of Decision A-0441.05

Claimant was dismissed because she stole $80 from the employer's cash and the employer had a zero tolerance policy for theft. The Umpire held that she had not acted "intentionally or maliciously". FCA ruled that it is sufficient for a misconduct to occur that the act or omission be made "wilfully" i.e. consciously, deliberately or intentionally. There is also no doubt that the act was conscious and of such a nature that the claimant could not have known or foreseen that her act would likely result in her dismissal.

Decision 67162 Full Text of Decision 67162

The claimant made long distance phone calls for personal use which amounted to in excess of $4000. The action of the claimant was that of a person stealing from his employer's resources which were of a considerable amount over a reasonably short period of seven months. See also allowed appeal by employer, CUB 67161.

Decision A-0033.03 Full Text of Decision A-0033.03

The claimant was fired for stealing medication from her Employer. The Court confirmed that dependency on certain drugs does not excuse wrongful acts and that the forgery of documents by an addict for the purpose of obtaining drugs does not constitute an unintentional act.

Decision 55850 Full Text of Decision 55850

Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0033.03

Decision 42431 Full Text of Decision 42431

Counsel for claimant maintained that as long as the determining factor in dismissal is theft, the theft should be established by criminal conviction. Umpire refuted this argument, saying that, even without a conviction, misconduct based on lack of integrity or dishonesty may lead to dismissal within the meaning of the Act.

Decision 39898 Full Text of Decision 39898

Claimant was suspended for taking a pail of wine juice from the store which he returned when confronted and suspended by employer. Umpire ruled that the returned of this merchandise when this was determined does not condone his admitted theft.

Decision A-0436.95 Full Text of Decision A-0436.95

Umpire found that deliberately transferring school funds to claimant's personal account constituted misconduct within the meaning of S.28 of the Act. Once misconduct established, it is not for the BOR to examine the reasonableness of the employer's decision to dismiss claimant. Upheld by the FCA.

Decision 13058 Full Text of Decision 13058

Pleaded guilty in court. Taking material belonging to an employer without the employer's permission is misconduct that should lead to dismissal... and a 6-week disqualification is not excessive.