IN THE MATTER OF THE EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
and
in the matter of a claim for benefit by
GARTH SHIELDS
and
IN THE MATTER of an appeal by the Employer Commercial Cleaning Services from a decision of a Board of Referees given at St. Catharine's, ON, on the 23rd day of December, 2002.
DECISION
Hon. David G. Riche
The issue before the Board of Referees was whether or not the claimant had lost his job due to his own misconduct pursuant to sections 29 and 30 of the EI Act.
The facts of this case are that the claimant was terminated by the employer for falsifying hours on his time sheet. There was also evidence of the claimant being involved in a road rage incident prior to his dismissal.
The Board of Referees found that the claimant had been dismissed for falsifying his time cards although the parties at the hearing before the Board of Referees agreed that the booking of hours that were not worked was an accepted practice. The Board also found that the road rage incident should not be related to the falsifying of time cards. The Board further found that the employer did not offer any documented warnings with respect to the incorrect time cards. Further, there was no evidence before the Board of Referees that the claimant had submitted false records.
On the basis of the evidence before them, the Board of Referees allowed the claimant's appeal.
The employer appealed the decision of the Board of Referees and filed a written statement stating that the claimant had been involved in a road rage incident and any other incidents would result in termination of his employment. They also point out that the claimant had falsified his time sheet. But this had been corrected by the office manager for payroll purposes. The manager stated that the claimant was guilty of wilful misconduct.
The claimant had pointed out in Exhibits 8.1 and 8.2 that it was the practice that the employees were given approximately eight hours per evening to do a shift at one particular contract or various contracts. He stated that if they finished their jobs early they were permitted to book the full allotted hours for the job. And this had been permitted by Mr. Draayer of Commercial Cleaning, his employer. Further it appears that the former office manager had condoned the practice because his hours were approved for payment.
Having considered this evidence, I am satisfied that the decision of the Board of Referees should not be altered as there is some question as to whether or not the claimant was permitted to quit early if his work was completed. The Board of Referees obviously based their decision on the evidence which was there before them and were satisfied that the employer had not brought forward sufficient evidence to show that the claimant wilfully submitted false records. The evidence before them is such that it would raise a doubt in favour of the claimant that he was permitted, as were other employees, to be paid for their full shift even though they may have completed their assignment in a shorter time than had been allocated.
In these circumstances I am satisfied that the Board of Referees decision should not be overturned. The appeal of the employer is dismissed.
David G. Riche
UMPIRE
November 14, 2003
St. John's, NF