| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
unacceptable behavior |
threats |
|
Summary:
The employer terminated the claimant's employment because the claimant threatened another employee. An investigation was conducted and the claimant was then dismissed. The employer stated that, each time an employee receives a disciplinary reprimand, they are given a certain number of demerit points. When a employee reaches 60 points, he or she is dismissed. In the claimant's case, the incident in question put him at the 60-point mark but he would have been dismissed in any case because the employer has a zero-tolerance policy for threats and harassment in the workplace. An employer cannot take threats lightly and the claimant's behaviour constitutes misconduct within the meaning of the Act. The Commission therefore imposed an indefinite disqualification on the claimant under section 30(1) of the Act. The BOR upheld the Commission's decision to the effect that the claimant's behaviour, namely, the fact that the threatened someone, constituted misconduct within the meaning of the Act because the claimant had acted wilfully and knowingly. Ths claimant's appeal is dismissed by the Umpire.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
misconduct |
harassment |
|
Summary:
The employer terminated the claimant's employment because the claimant threatened another employee. An investigation was conducted and the claimant was then dismissed. The employer stated that, each time an employee receives a disciplinary reprimand, they are given a certain number of demerit points. When a employee reaches 60 points, he or she is dismissed. In the claimant's case, the incident in question put him at the 60-point mark but he would have been dismissed in any case because the employer has a zero-tolerance policy for threats and harassment in the workplace. An employer cannot take threats lightly and the claimant's behaviour constitutes misconduct within the meaning of the Act. The Commission therefore imposed an indefinite disqualification on the claimant under section 30(1) of the Act. The BOR upheld the Commission's decision to the effect that the claimant's behaviour, namely, the fact that the threatened someone, constituted misconduct within the meaning of the Act because the claimant had acted wilfully and knowingly. Ths claimant's appeal is dismissed by the Umpire.
