IN THE MATTER OF the Unemployment Insurance Act
- and -
IN THE MATTER OF a claim for benefit by
Dale LINDMARK
- and -
IN THE MATTER OF an appeal to the Umpire by the claimant
from a decision of the Board of Referees given at
Jasper, Alberta, on December 17, 1992.
DECISION
WALSH, J.
This matter came before the Umpire for a decision on the record. The issue was whether appellant lost his position by reason of his own misconduct as a result of which he suffered a disqualification from benefits for 12 weeks from August 9, 1992 together with a reduction of benefit. According to the employer's version he was dismissed June 30, 1992 because of criminal activities on the job for which charges were pending at the time of the disqualification. Appellant's version was that he was terminated because something wasn't right with the audit conducted by United Grain Growers but he was not sure why he was dismissed.
The employer had also filed a statement of claim in Alberta against appellant.
In his letter of complaint to the Commission, appellant complains mainly about the delay in getting his record of employment from his employer and his vacation pay has been withheld and the seizure of various of his bank accounts. None of this is really pertinent to the unemployment insurance claim. He does deny being guilty of any misdoing. He states that no charges have been laid against him.
He has filed a counterclaim in civil proceedings brought against him by his employer, United Grain Growers Limited, for whom he had worked for 27 years. There are substantial sums of money involved in the civil proceedings.
The appeal to the Umpire is based on natural justice, although all three grounds of appeal are invoked. It must be said that the decision of the Board is highly unsatisfactory. It refers to the positive presentation made by appellant that nothing dishonest had been done and the company had no reason to terminate his employment and to new information which merely calls attention to certain paragraphs in his counterclaim in the civil proceedings. The Board then states that it is satisfied that the company acted in good faith and upon reasonable grounds for dismissing him for misconduct, being the information contained in Exhibit 16. Exhibit 16 is the statement of claim in the civil proceeding. There is no evidence as such in the record as to his guilt or innocence and certainly conclusions cannot be reached on the basis of allegations in the statement of claim and in the counterclaim. The decision of the Board of Referees is clearly lacking in natural justice and erroneous in law. Appellant's appeal against it must be maintained.
One can appreciate the difficulty of the Commission against who imposed the disqualification which May eventually prove to have been well merited, but it cannot be said that the agent had sufficient information to justify a disqualification. Exhibit 7 states that the employer will not release any statement pending laying of charges and legal action. It May well be that the outcome of the civil proceedings and the criminal proceedings if any are in fact laid, will provide justification for the disqualification but at this state on the information available it would be contrary to natural justice to impose it. While the decision in unemployment insurance claims depends on the balance of probabilities and not on proof without reasonable doubt as in criminal matters, in the present case there is no proof whatsoever other than the allegations of the employer. The disqualification cannot stand.
A.M. Walsh
UMPIRE
OTTAWA, Ontario
August 4, 1993