TRANSLATION
IN THE MATTER OF THE EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
- and -
IN THE MATTER of a claim for benefits by
GERMAIN PROULX
- and -
IN THE MATTER of an appeal to an Umpire by the
Claimant from a decision by the Board of Referees given
on September 19, 2000 at Saint-Hyacinthe, Quebec
MARIN, UMPIRE
[1] This appeal was heard at Montreal on October 24, 2001.
[2] The claimant was deprived of benefits because the Commission had issued a notice stating that he had lost his job because of misconduct pursuant to sections 29 and 30 of the Employment Insurance Act.
[3] The facts in the case are quite simple. The claimant had a disagreement with one of his employer's representatives. Rather harsh words were exchanged. Consequently, the claimant, angry for not getting the one-week vacation without pay that he had asked for, started making threats. The other threatened to have him arrested.
[4] The appeal docket revealed the dispute between the claimant Proulx and a designated supervisor by the name of Glen. He admitted to a discussion regarding vacations. He admitted to using harsh words.
[5] Was this misconduct?
[6] The Board of Referees qualified Mr. Proulx's behaviour as intentional and deliberate, which led to his dismissal.
[7] Loss of job on the grounds of misconduct is a heavy sanction. The appeal docket, in my opinion, was incorrectly interpreted and does not support the conclusion of misconduct.
[8] A call was placed to the employer. A certain Mrs. Bilodeau took the responsibility of answering on behalf of those present and witnessed the exchange. In fact, Glen, the supervisor, told the Commission officer that he had no time to talk. Mrs. Bilodeau knew little of the facts and her statement was short and vague.
[9] Was it possible to state misconduct based on such little evidence?
[10] J. Marceau in the Eppel decision (A-3-95) stated that evidence relating to misconduct should be formally established. There has to be sufficient evidence to prove, before a court, that the respondent had lost his job on the grounds of his own misconduct.
[11] Hearsay was admissible. However, this was not a case of first-hand hearsay. This was third-hand hearsay. The bottom line is that the Board had only the claimant's version of the reasons which led to misconduct since the only other person who could have really contributed to the case refused to do so. This was, in my opinion, a case of incomplete evidence. Under the circumstances, I agree that the decision cannot be upheld.
[12] The appeal is upheld. The Board's decision is rescinded.
R. J. MARIN
UMPIRE
OTTAWA, Ontario
January 18, 2002