Decision 14876

Case Number Claimant Judge Language Decision date
Decision 14876   Reed  English 1988-03-16
Decision Appealed Appellant Corresponding Case
Allowed  No N/A  -


Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees  right to be heard  improper hearing 

Summary:

Not given a fair hearing. Decision sent to claimant before members received job search list. There being no transcript, no reason not to believe her. I do accept her allegation that the Board made up its mind before the hearing. This happens too often. It is reprehensible.


Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
availability for work  job search  effective date 

Summary:

The Commission quashed the disentitlement effective 26-9. There is nothing to indicate why it chose the 26-9 date. If it was based on the job search list, then one has to ask why the Commission did not take account of the earlier job searches as well. [p. 6]


Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees  weight of statements  contradictory 

Summary:

1st explanation likely truer because one has not had time to adjust it to fit UI requirements but often given in response to questions not clear or approached with certain preconceptions. These can lead claimants to answer in restrictive way than truly reflects their intentions. The Commission is overly quick to quote CUB 8741 that the first statements made by an individual have more credibility than those made subsequently. This is a presumption; it is a guideline; but, it is not a rule to be applied mechanically and woodenly.[p. 6]


Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
availability for work  restrictions  or preferences 

Summary:

The question "What hours per day and days per week are you prepared to work?" might better be framed so as to ask claimants during what hours and days they are not prepared to work. This could truly elicit answers which show restrictions. [p. 7]


Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees  weight of statements  clarification 

Summary:

When a claimant gives an explanation concerning the context of an earlier statement, the Board must take the explanation into account in assessing whether the later statements are indeed contradictory to the earlier statements or whether a credible explanation exists. [p. 7]


Date modified: