TRANSLATION
IN THE MATTER of the EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
- and -
IN THE MATTER of a claim for benefits by
JEAN COTÉ
- and -
IN THE MATTER of an appeal to an Umpire by the Commission from the decision of a Board of Referees given on February 23, 2006 at Jonquière, Quebec.
DECISION
A. Gobeil, Umpire
The Commission appeals from a Board of Referees' decision overturning its determination to the effect that it could not pay the claimant regular benefits from September 19 to October 16, 2005 because he had been suspended during this period owing to his own misconduct.
The claimant's alleged misconduct consists of punching a fellow colleague's time card at his request.
The claimant acknowledges that he punched the time card of another employee, which goes against an unwritten policy prohibiting this practice. However, he stated that this was commonly done in the company.
The Board of Referees clearly indicated the facts that it accepted from the claimant's admission in this case. It also clearly indicated what it accepted from the testimony given by the claimant and the employer's representative.
In my opinion, the Board of Referees applied, to the facts before it, case law that was completely appropriate for these facts. It also based its decision, which is not at all unreasonable under the circumstances, on this case law.
I am also of the opinion that the employer cannot argue that the relationship of trust was violated and, at the same time, continue to have the claimant work, despite the fact that he was suspended. When the relationship of trust is broken, there is no alternative. The employee must be dismissed.
The employer's representative denies that the claimant's alleged act is a practice within the company. On this point, it seems to me that the claimant's testimony has greater weight because it is the employees who have to punch their time cards and who do so regularly. Practices can develop at this level without the employer's knowledge.
The claimant had been employed for 20 years without ever being subject to disciplinary measures, and the employer acknowledges that he was a good employee. Could the claimant expect a disciplinary measure ranging from suspension to dismissal when there is no evidence of any policies on disciplinary measures in the company? The consequences of the alleged act were therefore unknown.
In this context, I cannot find any errors of fact or of law in the decision under appeal that could enable to me to intervene and draw a different conclusion.
CONSEQUENTLY, the Commission's appeal is dismissed.
Albert Gobeil
Umpire
Montreal, Quebec
August 10, 2006