| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| refusal of work |
labour dispute |
|
|
Summary:
Unemployed worker who accepted work offered on 3-11. Laid off 4-11 after working only 18 hours. Strike commenced 5-11. The Commission was aware when referring him to the job that the plant would be struck. On these facts, he would have been able to showgood cause for refusing.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
loss of benefits due to third party |
default |
|
Summary:
Claimant accepted work offered on 3-11 and was disentitled from 5-11 because of a strike. He had established his eligibility for UI and the subsequent loss of it was by reason of the Commission's misinformation. He should not be required to assume responsibility for this error.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
shortly after commencing |
|
Summary:
Accepted work 3-11. Laid off due to strike 4-11. An analogy can be drawn with ABRAHAMS. If a "token" engagement in another occupation should not have the effect of restoring benefits, a "token" engagement should not have the effect of disentitling one who was otherwise entitled.
