Summary of Issue: From Employer

Decision A-0344.05 Full Text of Decision A-0344.05

The BOR concluded that the harassment committed by the claimant, including sexual harassment, was not wilful or deliberate despite the evidence presented by the employer. The Court stated that the BOR could not ignore relevant evidence or reject it without explaining the reasons for doing so or for which he felt he was warranted in ignoring such evidence. In this case, this evidence concerned the reasons for the claimant's dismissal, the numerous warnings he received in connection with his misconduct, a suspension that was applied and the incidents which ultimately led to the dismissal. Such a conclusion on the part of the BOR appears to be either arbitrary and abusive or mistaken in law in the absence of explanations that may have justified it.

Decision 22179 Full Text of Decision 22179

The collective agreement was not made part of the evidence. All we have is a hearsay statement of somebody's interpretation of what the collective agreement said with respect to a very important point. While this evidence may be admissible, it is entitled to very little, if any, tangible weight.

Decision 16791 Full Text of Decision 16791

There is considerable jurisprudence that when there is a conflict between the oral testimony of a claimant before the Board and the second hand hearsay evidence taken by telephone from ex-employer, the direct oral evidence of claimant should generally be given more weight.

Decision 15252 Full Text of Decision 15252

An employer is not entitled to be presumed more credible than an employee. Credibility is to be found upon the material before the Board. Neither side starts with any favourable or unfavourable presumption of credibility.

Decision 15034 Full Text of Decision 15034

Referees ought to scrutinize employer's statements with every bit as much care as they scrutinize employees' statements. If they initially approach employees' statements with a grain of skepticism, so they ought also to approach employers' statements. No double standard.

Decision 14849 Full Text of Decision 14849

None of the persons to whom the Commission officer spoke knew claimant or had any first hand knowledge of what had taken place. When claimant attempted to find those who were there when he worked, he was unable to do so. Claimant's evidence must be preferred. The Board erred.

Decision 14686 Full Text of Decision 14686

I found statements of claimant to be confusing, to be viewed with caution due to self-interest. Those from former employer are relatively clear and no motive of self-interest. No apparent history of tension which would lead employer to give an unfavourable account.

Decision 14569 Full Text of Decision 14569

Just as is frequently held that a first statement must be given more weight, the same should apply to the employer's second statement when he stated that claimant would have been fired anyway on the sole incident of beer sale.

Decision 11717 Full Text of Decision 11717

If the employer persists in its refusal to produce the field diary then this stubborn and intransigent attitude is something which should weigh in claimant's favour and make suspect to some degree at least the employer's hearsay evidence of earnings.