Decision A-0045.96

Case Number Claimant Judge Language Decision date
Decision A-0045.96 Boulton Douglas  Federal  English 1996-12-18
Decision Appealed Appellant Corresponding Case
Allowed Unanimous  No Commission 

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
misconduct  proof 


The FCA was of the view that there was nothing in the settlement agreement which would permit one to infer that the employer withdrew his allegation of misconduct against the claimant. This is not to suggest that settlement agreement cannot be admitted as evidence to rebut the Commission's understanding that employment was lost due to a claimant's own misconduct. Where a settlement agreement provides for reinstatement or the employee is given meaningful compensation then due weight should be given to such evidence.

Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
misconduct  court judgments or out-of-court settlements 


Quoting Pérusse (A-309-81) and Wile (A-233-94), the FCA stated that the mere existence of a concluded settlement agreement is not of itself determinative of the issue of whether an employee was dismissed for misconduct. It is for the BOR to assess the evidence and come to a conclusion. It is not bound by how the employer and employee or a third party might characterize the grounds on which an employment has been terminated.**FCA was of the view that the Umpire erred when relying on the grievance settlement and the withdrawal of the previous submission by the employer he concluded there was no loss of employment due to misconduct.

Date modified: