| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dishonesty |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant was dismissed as he was obtaining a financial benefit as a result of participating in a cash back scheme. The practice consisted of using certain service stations to refill the employer's vehicle. It is alleged certain dealers were charging a different price to fill a commercial vehicle and gave the driver a cash gift card. The claimant does not dispute he participated in a fraud against the company, at its expense, but pointed out that 19 other drivers from his unit were also indulging in the same act.
The claimant's actions were, in law, fraudulent and a wilful act. The claimant is not entitled to benefits as it consists of misconduct. The appeal by the commission is allowed by the Umpire.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
criminal acts |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant was dismissed as he was obtaining a financial benefit as a result of participating in a cash back scheme. The practice consisted of using certain service stations to refill the employer's vehicle. It is alleged certain dealers were charging a different price to fill a commercial vehicle and gave the driver a cash gift card. The claimant does not dispute he participated in a fraud against the company, at its expense, but pointed out that 19 other drivers from his unit were also indulging in the same act. The claimant's actions were, in law, fraudulent and a wilful act. The claimant is not entitled to benefits as it consists of misconduct. The appeal by the commission is allowed by the Umpire.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
insubordination |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant was dismissed as he was obtaining a financial benefit as a result of participating in a cash back scheme. The practice consisted of using certain service stations to refill the employer's vehicle. It is alleged certain dealers were charging a different price to fill a commercial vehicle and gave the driver a cash gift card. The claimant does not dispute he participated in a fraud against the company, at its expense, but pointed out that 19 other drivers from his unit were also indulging in the same act. The claimant's actions were, in law, fraudulent and a wilful act. The claimant is not entitled to benefits as it consists of misconduct. The appeal by the commission is allowed by the Umpire.
