| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| proof |
credibility |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant appeals from the determination given by a BOR, which allowed the employer's appeal from the Commission's decision that the acts of which the employer accused the claimant did not show misconduct on his part. The Commission had accepted the claim for benefits by the claimant. The employer suspended the claimant for 10 working days following a harassment complaint and an administrative investigation. The Commission asked the employer to provide information from the claimant’s file, as it could not make a finding of misconduct based merely on the allegation in the letter of suspension. The employer refused, saying that the case involved harassment. The employer also said that it would not disclose anything about its investigation into the facts and complaints. The claimant flatly denied the employer’s allegations, saying that he never harassed or bullied any other employees or directed foul language at them. The Commission gave the claimant the benefit of doubt, as the evidence was equally balanced on both sides (section 49 of the Employment Insurance Act). The appeal by the claimant is allowed by the Umpire.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
proof |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant appeals from the determination given by a BOR, which allowed the employer's appeal from the Commission's decision that the acts of which the employer accused the claimant did not show misconduct on his part. The Commission had accepted the claim for benefits by the claimant. The employer suspended the claimant for 10 working days following a harassment complaint and an administrative investigation. The Commission asked the employer to provide information from the claimant’s file, as it could not make a finding of misconduct based merely on the allegation in the letter of suspension. The employer refused, saying that the case involved harassment. The employer also said that it would not disclose anything about its investigation into the facts and complaints. The claimant flatly denied the employer’s allegations, saying that he never harassed or bullied any other employees or directed foul language at them. The Commission gave the claimant the benefit of doubt, as the evidence was equally balanced on both sides (section 49 of the Employment Insurance Act). The appeal by the claimant is allowed by the Umpire.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| proof |
Benefit of Doubt |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant appeals from the determination given by a BOR, which allowed the employer's appeal from the Commission's decision that the acts of which the employer accused the claimant did not show misconduct on his part. The Commission had accepted the claim for benefits by the claimant. The employer suspended the claimant for 10 working days following a harassment complaint and an administrative investigation. The Commission asked the employer to provide information from the claimant’s file, as it could not make a finding of misconduct based merely on the allegation in the letter of suspension. The employer refused, saying that the case involved harassment. The employer also said that it would not disclose anything about its investigation into the facts and complaints. The claimant flatly denied the employer’s allegations, saying that he never harassed or bullied any other employees or directed foul language at them. The Commission gave the claimant the benefit of doubt, as the evidence was equally balanced on both sides (section 49 of the Employment Insurance Act). The appeal by the claimant is allowed by the Umpire.
