| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
unacceptable behavior |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant says he was a supervisor and had to work on Sunday. The employer denied that the claimant was a supervisor. In addition the claimant had been accused of sexual harassment of a female employee, which he denied. The commission’s position is that he claimant breached the employer’s rules of conduct by entering the building in question without authorization on a day when he was not scheduled to work. The Board finds that the claimant knew or should have been familiar with the rules and procedures and that he had signed the Staff Rules of Conduct. For the above reasons, the Board finds that the claimant acted in a wilful manner and that his actions constitute misconduct. The Appeal by the claimant is dismissed by the Umpire.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
breach of rules |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant says he was a supervisor and had to work on Sunday. The employer denied that the claimant was a supervisor. In addition the claimant had been accused of sexual harassment of a female employee, which he denied. The commission’s position is that he claimant breached the employer’s rules of conduct by entering the building in question without authorization on a day when he was not scheduled to work. The Board finds that the claimant knew or should have been familiar with the rules and procedures and that he had signed the Staff Rules of Conduct. For the above reasons, the Board finds that the claimant acted in a wilful manner and that his actions constitute misconduct. The Appeal by the claimant is dismissed by the Umpire.
