| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of facts |
|
Summary:
Dismissed for failing on 3 occasions to report for work. Umpire found that the BOR erred in law because it didn't examine the evidence to determine the reason in each instance for the claimant's failure to report for work and to further determine whether having regard thereto, the mental element of willfulness was present on each occasion. BOR simply applied the definition of misconduct from Tucker to conclude that absence from work on 3 occasions constituted misconduct without further analysis. Absence from work may be cause for dismissal but cause for dismissal does not equate with misconduct.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
misconduct |
absences from work |
|
Summary:
Dismissed for failing on 3 occasions to report for work. Umpire found that the BOR erred in law because it didn't examine the evidence to determine the reason in each instance for the claimant's failure to report for work and to further determine whether having regard thereto, the mental element of willfulness was present on each occasion. BOR simply applied the definition of misconduct from Tucker to conclude that absence from work on 3 occasions constituted misconduct without further analysis. Absence from work may be cause for dismissal but cause for dismissal does not equate with misconduct.
