IN THE MATTER of the EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
- and -
IN THE MATTER of a claim by
D.Q.
- and -
IN THE MATTER of an appeal to an Umpire by the claimant from a decision by the Board of Referees given
on November 16, 2010, at Burnaby, British Columbia
LOUIS S. TANNENBAUM, Umpire
The issue under appeal is whether or not the claimant lost his employment as a result of his own misconduct pursuant to sections 29 and 30 of the Employment Insurance Act (the Act).
An oral hearing has not been requested therefore a decision will be rendered based upon the information in the appeal docket.
According to the employer the claimant was dismissed because he sent an inappropriate e-mail on his company computer contrary to company policy. The claimant contends however that he was fired because of union activity.
The Commission concluded that the claimant lost his employment because of misconduct and refused benefits (exhibit 8).
An appeal to the Board of Referees was unanimously dismissed (exhibit 21) and the claimant now appeals before the Umpire alleging a denial of natural justice (exhibit 22.2).
In dismissing the appeal the Board of Referees concluded:
The Board finds the evidence of the employer, that the claimant was terminated for cause, more reliable, consistent, reasonable than that of the claimant who states he was fired for union activity because the employer took reasonable steps and sought legal advice regarding B.C. Labour Law before proceeding with the termination for cause.
The Board finds that the claimant’s action of sending an inappropriate email over his employer’s facilities in spite of the employer’s written communications policy (Exhibit 20) was wilful, or at least of such careless or negligent nature that one could say that he wilfully disregarded the effects his actions could have on his job. This action constitutes misconduct within the meaning of the Act.
There is absolutely no evidence to support either the ground of appeal invoked, nor any other possible ground of appeal. The decision of the Board was open to it on the evidence, and is a reasonable one that follows the law and the decided cases. There is no reason for the Umpire to intervene.
For the above reasons the appeal before the Umpire is dismissed.
Louis S. Tannenbaum
UMPIRE
OTTAWA, Ontario
February 18, 2011