Honestly what you did does meet all the elements for a misconduct except that it wasn't willful. It was an error that could have caused them damages. I'd focus on the your first time using the lock box and if no one trained you on it. I'd also mention that you have no prior issues showing carelessness at work with your tasks.
Other people probably more to add but as a previous adjudicator that's my advice. Good luck!
Hummmm not sure I agree. An isolated one time mistake without intent generally doesn't constitute misconduct *even* if it causes harm to the employer unless it is clearly negligent. Here, there was absolutely no harm to the employer. Also, the employer has the burden of proving the misconduct and if they have no proof, the claimant's sworn testimony denying the act should suffice.
In this case, though, the best argument is that they let OP continue working and closing the store.
Maybe but they could say they were investigating..pulling up surveillance.
I will admit that I am not super knowledgeable about appeals but I can see how he got disqualified. They could argue that his negligence with the lock box could have caused a robbery and loss of merchandise. There's a risk in that.
I just don't advise him focusing on those things. That's just my opinion 🤷
Edit: but yes the burden is on the employer.
Honestly what you did does meet all the elements for a misconduct except that it wasn't willful. It was an error that could have caused them damages. I'd focus on the your first time using the lock box and if no one trained you on it. I'd also mention that you have no prior issues showing carelessness at work with your tasks. Other people probably more to add but as a previous adjudicator that's my advice. Good luck!
Hummmm not sure I agree. An isolated one time mistake without intent generally doesn't constitute misconduct *even* if it causes harm to the employer unless it is clearly negligent. Here, there was absolutely no harm to the employer. Also, the employer has the burden of proving the misconduct and if they have no proof, the claimant's sworn testimony denying the act should suffice. In this case, though, the best argument is that they let OP continue working and closing the store.
Maybe but they could say they were investigating..pulling up surveillance. I will admit that I am not super knowledgeable about appeals but I can see how he got disqualified. They could argue that his negligence with the lock box could have caused a robbery and loss of merchandise. There's a risk in that. I just don't advise him focusing on those things. That's just my opinion 🤷 Edit: but yes the burden is on the employer.
I think you did a good job. Good luck to you!