| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
Summary:
Dismissed for taking advantage of his discount to buy tires for his father’s truck in his own name. BOR dismissed the claimant’s appeal on the ground that he had breached his employer’s rules. Umpire was of the view that BOR had erred in law in relying solely on the employer’s reason for its decision without saying that the claimant’s behaviour indeed constituted misconduct within the meaning of the Act. Umpire found that if the employer had accused the claimant of breaking the rules on a number of occasions, the claimant’s behaviour undoubtedly could have constituted dismissal under the Act, but such was not the case. Reference made to FCA decisions in Fakhari A-0732.95 and Mario Guay A-1036.96.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
misconduct |
breach of rules |
|
Summary:
Dismissed for taking advantage of his discount to buy tires for his father’s truck in his own name. BOR dismissed the claimant’s appeal on the ground that he had breached his employer’s rules. Umpire was of the view that BOR had erred in law in relying solely on the employer’s reason for its decision without saying that the claimant’s behaviour indeed constituted misconduct within the meaning of the Act. Umpire found that if the employer had accused the claimant of breaking the rules on a number of occasions, the claimant’s behaviour undoubtedly could have constituted dismissal under the Act, but such was not the case. Reference made to FCA decisions in Fakhari A-0732.95 and Mario Guay A-1036.96.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of facts |
|
Summary:
Dismissed for taking advantage of his discount to buy tires for his father’s truck in his own name. BOR dismissed the claimant’s appeal on the ground that he had breached his employer’s rules. Umpire was of the view that BOR had erred in law in relying solely on the employer’s reason for its decision without saying that the claimant’s behaviour indeed constituted misconduct within the meaning of the Act. Umpire found that if the employer had accused the claimant of breaking the rules on a number of occasions, the claimant’s behaviour undoubtedly could have constituted dismissal under the Act, but such was not the case. Reference made to FCA decisions in Fakhari A-0732.95 and Mario Guay A-1036.96.
