Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
misconduct |
rationale |
|
|
Summary:
DEBONO quoted with approval: S. 28-30 are provisions in a statute the object of which is to establish a scheme of UI for insured persons who through no fault of their own lose their employment. It is not intended to benefit those who elect not to be employed or lose employment by their own actions.
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
issue not recognized |
error by board |
|
Summary:
The Board substituted the misconduct disqualification for one for voluntarily leaving. The Board did not stray from the subject matter it was called upon to consider. The principle that its jurisdiction is limited to dealing with the decision made by the CEIC, as stated in HAMILTON, was respected.
Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
board of referees |
issue not recognized |
correction to consider |
|
Summary:
The notions of "dismissal for misconduct" and "voluntarily leaving" may be two distinct abstract notions, but they are dealt with together in s. 28 and 30. By interpreting the facts in a slightly different manner and concluding to quitting rather than dismissal, the Board did not err.
Disqualified under the misconduct provisions. The Board found that claimant quit without just cause. As per the Umpire, the Board cannot substitute its own opinion and decide on another ground. The Umpire erred. The Board did not stray from the subject matter it was called upon to consider.