Summary of Issue: Unexcused Absences From Work

Decision A0198.11 Full Text of Decision A0198.11

Following a warning against unauthorized absences, the claimant failed to attend work between December 12 and 21, 2009, because he was outside of the country. The claimant was notified of his dismissal upon his return to work on December 21. The Commission denied benefits because the claimant lost his employment as a result of his misconduct. The FCA found that the Umpire did not fail to intervene in the Board’s conclusion that the daughter’s trip was not an emergency. The FCA further held that the Umpire did not err by failing to intervene in the Board’s finding that the absence without notification may be blameless but just cause argument is not relevant when wilful misconduct engaged disregarding employer's policy. Finally, regarding the Applicant’s argument that he was not terminated for just cause, the Court held that arguments with respect to just cause are irrelevant to determining if wilful misconduct took place.

Decision 76967 Full Text of Decision 76967

The claimant was not eligible to receive benefits because he lost his employment as a result of his own misconduct under sections 29 and 30 of the EI Act. On December 31, 2009 the claimant was dismissed from his employment as he was scheduled to work the afternoons of December 29 to December 31 inclusive but he did not show up for work. Upon receipt of the work schedule, he advised his employer by e-mail that he did not accept the schedule. The claimant had requested to be removed from the schedule but it was not approved. The supervisor attempted to reach the claimant five times on Monday, December 28. The claimant ignored those calls. The appeal by the claimant was dismissed.

Decision 76822 Full Text of Decision 76822

According to the employer, the claimant was dismissed for unjustified absences and for reporting for work in a state of intoxication. He had received two written warnings in this regard and following the two warnings, the claimant reported for work in a state of intoxication on August 22, 2010. The claimant was dismissed on August 28, 2010. The Commission found that the claimant's actions constituted misconduct as to adversely affect the relationship of trust between himself and his employer. The claimant's appeal is dismissed by the Umpire.

Decision 76291 Full Text of Decision 76291

The claimant was working under a collective bargaining agreement. In that agreement, it was considered that a person who did not call in if they were missing work could be terminated. In this case, the claimant did not call in on June 8, 9 and 10, 2009. Apparently the claimant had been ill the previous week for Thursday and Friday and called in at that time. The reason given by the claimant for not calling in on Monday was that he was stressed and didn't think he had to call in. The claimant did not provide a doctor's note for June 8, 9 and 10. The Board of Referees determined that the claimant was aware of the company's police concerning absenteeism and knew that this could cause him to be dismissed. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed.

Decision 75118 Full Text of Decision 75118

The claimant was not laid off with respect to shortage of work. The claimant had advised the employer he had been drinking the night before and didn't wake up until the next afternoon. At that time, he didn't know where his cell phone was or the company vehicle. The claimant had committed a breach of the employer's policy within the meaning of the Act. The BOR found that the claimant knew that it was imperative that he adher to the employer's requests, rules and protocol. His conduct was considered willful, deliberate or so reckless as to approach willfulness and therefore constituted misconduct. The claimant’s appeal is dismissed by the Umpire.

Decision A0629.08 Full Text of Decision A0629.08

The claimant had failed to report to work and contact his employer by reason of his incarceration. As a result, the Commission denied him benefits on the basis that he had lost his employment due to misconduct. The BOR and the Umpire decided in favour of the claimant who successfully argued that while incarcerated he was unable to contact his employer, and that he had neither quit nor abandoned his employment. The Umpire added that the issue before the BOR should have been whether the claimant was available for work during his incarceration and that the BOR should reconsider the matter in light of s. 18(a) of the EIA. The FCA determined that the Umpire erred in concluding that this matter involved the application of s. 18(a) of the EIA. Furthermore, the FCA held that the Umpire applied the wrong test in determining whether there was misconduct on the part of the claimant.

Decision 71231 Full Text of Decision 71231

The claimant did not show up for work on October 24, 2007 and was dismissed the next day. He said he asked for the morning off and his supervisor agreed. When he went home after attending to the matters for which he had requested time off he went to sleep and did not wake up until 4:00 p.m. The employer confirmed that the claimant had requested time off which was approved but that he did not show up for work all day. The fact is the crew manager only allowed the claimant a couple of hours to come in late that morning. The claimant should have called the crew chief. The claimant was given verbal and written warnings about his tardiness and he was given a final written warning on 21 June 2007 and told he would be dismissed should he fail to show up for work, specifically not calling to inform his Manager/Supervisor. The appeal is dismissed.

Decision 70397 Full Text of Decision 70397

The claimant was scheduled to work on July 12, 2007 but he failed to show up for work or to contact the employer. The claimant did not show up for work on July 12, 2007 due to the fact that he had a relapse in his drug use. The employer told the Commission that he worked as a support worker and given his relapse he was no longer a good example. The Commission determined that the claimant's absence from work due to his drug use constituted misconduct within the meaning of the Employment Insurance Act because he was in direct violation of the employer's policy and failed to meet the conditions of his employment.

Decision 54837 Full Text of Decision 54837

Claimant failed to report to work from April 9 to April 26, 2001 without notifying his employer and spent his time gambling in casinos. He said that he was a compulsive gambler and was in a deep state of confusion and depression as a result of recent losses and financial debt. Umpire stated that absenteeism from work without notifying the employer and supplying a valid reason evinces a wilful and wanton disregard of the interests of the employer and a disregard of a standard of behaviour an employer has a right to expect of an employee.

Decision 53254 Full Text of Decision 53254

A three months' leave was approved but the claimant took four months without having received approval for the last month. Held that there was no obligation to go behind the decision in order to assess the fairness of the decision. When someone asks for leave which is denied, the failure to respect the employer's requirement is recognized as a breach of trust between employer and employee, which is misconduct per se.

Decision 50148 Full Text of Decision 50148

Claimant took holidays despite employer's refusal for reason of work. Upon his return, claimant dismissed from his employment. Dismissal subjectively perceived by the claimant as both unfair and unjust. Ruled by Umpire that taking an unauthorized leave once the employer has denied the leave is misconduct. An employee cannot overrule his/her employer in the proper functioning of its company.

Decision 45741 Full Text of Decision 45741

Claimant did not provide a medical certificate justifying his absence, in contravention of the agreement he had signed with his employer. Said he had the document but procrastinated in handing it in. According to the BOR, the claimant was guilty of negligence rather than misconduct. Error of law, according to the Umpire. Claimant had contravened the signed agreement and had been careless in respecting it.

Decision 41667A Full Text of Decision 41667A

Claimant arrested on 27-12-96, incarcerated for a breach of probation and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. He was released on 22-03-97. Neither he nor his father did call his work to notify them of his absence. Claimant claimed that he made every reasonable attempt to contact his employer but was physically unable to do so because of incarceration. Referring to FCA decision in Brissette (A-1342.92), Umpire held that if, due to his misconduct outside of the workplace, he is unable to fulfil that contract, then he has lost his job due to misconduct.

Decision 35674 Full Text of Decision 35674

Claimant was dismissed following a number of warnings for unjustified lateness and failure to show up at work without prior notice or explanation. If an employee is unable to go to work on the day or at the time expected, the employee must give his employer sufficient notice and prove that there was a serious reason for being absent.

Decision 29085 Full Text of Decision 29085

Gave false information to the employer's medical examiner, stating that he was incapable of doing any work; while on leave, he was filmed helping his mother move. Thus, according to his employer, he was disloyal and breached the trust existing between them.

Decision 26688 Full Text of Decision 26688

Alleged sickness to go hunting. As noted by the CEIC officer, notifying an employer is not sufficient; he is entitled to know the reasons for the absence. Absence from work for a frivolous reason, on some pretext, or refusing to disclose the reason constitutes misconduct.

Decision 22178 Full Text of Decision 22178

There is substantial evidence that claimant was absent from work on numerous occasions and he had been warned that unless he corrected this or unless he could produce a medical certificate justifying this absenteeism, he would be dismissed. I am satisfied that misconduct is clearly established.

Decision 22082 Full Text of Decision 22082

Post office worker with 10 years' service who phoned in sick one day prior to his departure on vacation to Jamaica. I have grave doubts that the one isolated instance of alleged false representation by an employee would be sufficient to constitute misconduct. Seems an excuse for dismissal.

Decision 19749 Full Text of Decision 19749

Did not report to work for 3 days and said he was sick. Employer requested a medical certificate. When one was not provided the claimant was fired. In my opinion, a significant unexcused absence from work, without subsequent medical proof of illness, constitutes misconduct.

Decision 19063A Full Text of Decision 19063A

It can be clearly seen that the claimant extended his vacation without authorization, thus contravening the rules and directives of the employer. This is clearly misconduct within the meaning of the legislation, and cannot be justified by the alleged personality conflict.

Decision 11982 Full Text of Decision 11982

Advised employer of doctor's appointment and sickness. Was seen playing hockey same day. No documentary evidence that this was in accord with advice of doctor, as suggested. The question is essentially one of credibility.