Summary of Issue: Violations Of Contract

Decision 75734 Full Text of Decision 75734

The claimant was dismissed after her involvement in a fight with a co-worker, this being the second incident involving the two. The claimant and her co-worker had been warned and knew that the employer had a zero tolerance policy for this type of incident. The co-worker was also dismissed as a result of these incidents. The Commission concluded that the claimant' s engagement in a physical altercation with her co-worker on company property after a first reprimand for the same reasons constituted a breach of the employer' s zero tolerance policy forming part of the employment contract and resulted in a misconduct justifying the dismissal. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed.

Decision 74927 Full Text of Decision 74927

The claimant is disentitled by the Commission from receiving benefits following a 90-day suspension imposed by the employer for voluntarily behaving unethically toward patients, colleagues and performing duties normally carried out only by the institution's nurses to residential in a long-term care centre. The claimant does not agree that what the employer alleges constitutes misconduct. It is perhaps true that the claimant has her own way of interacting with the patients of the residence where she has worked for over 30 years. The claimant knew or should have known that through her actions, she was breaking the institution's internal regulations. The claimant has filed a union grievance against the employer to contest her suspension. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed by the Umpire.

Decision 72139 Full Text of Decision 72139

The claimant worked in a residence for senior citizens; during a Norwalk epidemic which required more sanitary care. He is alleged to have had difficulties with an elderly patient who was more difficult than others. The resulting complaint was to the effect the claimant used physical and verbal abuse on the resident and excessive force, yelling at him and struggling while changing his bedding and soiled clothing. Two other care aides witnessed the event on a 97 years of age resident. Others complained about the behaviour on the nightshift. The employer has a "no abuse" policy and a "no restraint" facility. The claimant's actions constituted misconduct as defined by the law. The BOR finds that the claiming lost his employment because of his own misconduct. The Umpire confirms the decision of the BOR and rejects the appeal from the claimants.

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 52938 Full Text of Decision 52938

The Commission determined that the claimant had lost his job because he had breached the established rules of professional conduct. The umpire determined that by doing what he was accused of doing, and which he himself acknowledges doing, the claimant should normally have known that he could be fired had his employer learnt about it. See the summary indexed under CAF A-0043.02

Decision 52191 Full Text of Decision 52191

Contrary to the company's policy, claimant opened an inappropriate e-mail and forwarded it to other employees. BOR found that the claimant wilfully violated company policy despite being fully aware of the policy. Misconduct established within the meaning of the EI Act.

Decision 42308 Full Text of Decision 42308

Clmt was dismissed for helping a friend to install his antenna while on a medically certified sick leave. Umpire ruled that this benevolent activity performed without remuneraton was not breach of duty as it was not a condition of his employment that he not perform duties to assist a friend.

Decision 38446 Full Text of Decision 38446

In this case, there was abundant evidence before the Board that the claimant had falsified her employer's books to show that her day care fees had been paid. This was clearly a violation of the employment relationship and constituted a breach of the claimant's contract.

Decision 36832 Full Text of Decision 36832

Not solely the loss of his driver's licence that caused termination of claimant's employment but rather his failure to advise his employer, as part of his contract, to report any incident arising as a result of use of alcohol. Could reasonably be found to be misconduct.

Decision 13688 Full Text of Decision 13688

Claimant, an insurance agent, was fired because he broke a term of his contract that required him to solicit business for the employer's company only. The argument that this was a new condition was dismissed. I am surprised that the disqualification was reduced from 6 to 2 weeks.