| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
dishonesty |
|
|
Summary:
The FCA recognized that the claimant was less than forthright with his employer when confronted with the allegation that he held overlapping employment with another employer and which could have prevented him from fulfilling all of his contractual obligations. However, the BOR held that the claimant's conduct did not amount to misconduct which would warrant dismissal. The FCA held that the BOR had proper regard to the evidence and its findings could not be disturbed.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Summary:
Relying on Jewell (A-236-94), Umpire held that the claimant's failure to be truthful constitutes misconduct. The FCA was of the view that Jewell was not accurately reflecting the jurisprudence which had grown up around the concept of misconduct and that it could no longer be considered of any precedential value. An employer's subjective appreciation of the type of misconduct which warrants dismissal for just cause cannot be deemed binding on a BOR. The FCA did not believe that an employer's mere assurance that it believes the conduct in question is misconduct, and that it was the reason for termination of the employment, satisfies the onus of proof which rests on the Commission.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
misconduct |
proof |
|
Summary:
Relying on Jewell (A-236-94), Umpire held that the claimant's failure to be truthful constitutes misconduct. The FCA was of the view that Jewell was not accurately reflecting the jurisprudence which had grown up around the concept of misconduct and that it could no longer be considered of any precedential value. An employer's subjective appreciation of the type of misconduct which warrants dismissal for just cause cannot be deemed binding on a BOR. The FCA did not believe that an employer's mere assurance that it believes the conduct in question is misconduct, and that it was the reason for termination of the employment, satisfies the onus of proof which rests on the Commission.
