| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
presumption |
|
Summary:
Attending a non-referred course does not automatically exclude from UI. Disentitlement follows not as a statutory consequence but only because one has not discharged the presumption of non-availability. What is raised is a presumption only that may be rebutted.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
disentitlement not automatic |
|
Summary:
Attending a non-referred course does not automatically exclude from UI. Disentitlement follows not as a statutory consequence but only because one has not discharged the presumption of non-availability. What is raised is a presumption only that may be rebutted.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
At issue was claimant's availability while attending a course of study. Lest there be any doubt, had I been sitting as a Board I would have, without hesitation, rejected the claimant's appeal. But these are not the tests to be applied.
