| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
principal means of livelihood |
|
|
Summary:
Clamaint's investment was moderately substantial he did not make the investment for the purpose of crating employment for himself. His role was that of an investor. The continuity of the business was not dependent upon the claimant, nor was it the type of business that would normally occupy the claimant. When the factors set in Schwenk are viewed in their proper perspective the claimant's activity in the business was not as an employer and the work he performed was of such a minor extent that a person would not normally rely on that employment as a principal means of livelihood.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
circumstances |
nature and amount |
|
Summary:
Clamaint's investment was moderately substantial he did not make the investment for the purpose of crating employment for himself. His role was that of an investor. The continuity of the business was not dependent upon the claimant, nor was it the type of business that would normally occupy the claimant. When the factors set in Schwenk are viewed in their proper perspective the claimant's activity in the business was not as an employer and the work he performed was of such a minor extent that a person would not normally rely on that employment as a principal means of livelihood.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
week of unemployment |
minor in extent |
|
Summary:
According to criteria set in sSchwenk, claimant's overall participation in the business was minor in extent. The time he spent in the business must be viewed by taking into account the circumstances under which claimant attended the business premises. He was unemployed waiting for a recall to work. He was not there because he had to be there.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
circumstances |
time spent |
|
Summary:
According to criteria set in sSchwenk, claimant's overall participation in the business was minor in extent. The time he spent in the business must be viewed by taking into account the circumstances under which claimant attended the business premises. He was unemployed waiting for a recall to work. He was not there because he had to be there.
