| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
absences from work |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant was told to report his periods of absence and provide a medical certificate for any period of absence of 8 hours or more. Continued to absent himself without justifying his behaviour. Non-compliance with an instruction, of which the employee is aware, and knowing that it can lead to dismissal, constitutes misconduct.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
merit of dismissal |
|
|
Summary:
The Board made an error in law by asking whether the misconduct of which the claimant was accused justified dismissal when it concluded that the final disciplinary measure was disproportionate to the act of which he was accused. Should rather have determined whether dismissal was due to misconduct.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
breach of rules |
|
|
Summary:
The breaking of a legitimate and reasonable instruction by the employer, with which the employee was familiar, constitutes misconduct when the employee does so while performing his duties and can foresee that such a refusal to follow instructions is likely to lead to his dismissal.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of facts |
|
Summary:
The Board made an error in law by asking whether the misconduct of which the claimant was accused justified dismissal when it concluded that the final disciplinary measure was disproportionate to the act of which he was accused. Should rather have determined whether dismissal was due to misconduct.
