| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
lateness |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant was dismissed on November 11, 2011. He acknowledged that he got up late on the morning of November 8, 2011, because his alarm clock did not ring. He also acknowledged that he did not notify his employer of his absence because the boat on which he was working had left and he had hoped that his absence would go unnoticed. He had already received several written warnings from his employer, namely, for absenteeism, recurring tardiness and his drug use problem. He had also been subject to disciplinary measures. The Commission informed the claimant that he had lost his employment by reason of his own misconduct. The FCA explained that the BOR had to determine whether the claimant had conducted himself so carelessly that he could not have been unaware that his absence could result in dismissal. The FCA determined that the BOR and the Umpire failed to consider the entire record, including the claimant’s absences and recurring tardiness, in addition to his carelessness, which rendered their decisions unreasonable.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
absences from work |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant was dismissed on November 11, 2011. He acknowledged that he got up late on the morning of November 8, 2011, because his alarm clock did not ring. He also acknowledged that he did not notify his employer of his absence because the boat on which he was working had left and he had hoped that his absence would go unnoticed. He had already received several written warnings from his employer, namely, for absenteeism, recurring tardiness and his drug use problem. He had also been subject to disciplinary measures. The Commission informed the claimant that he had lost his employment by reason of his own misconduct. The FCA explained that the BOR had to determine whether the claimant had conducted himself so carelessly that he could not have been unaware that his absence could result in dismissal. The FCA determined that the BOR and the Umpire failed to consider the entire record, including the claimant’s absences and recurring tardiness, in addition to his carelessness, which rendered their decisions unreasonable.
