| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| refusal of work |
rationale |
|
|
Summary:
The purpose of 27(1) and (3) is to allow individuals a reasonable period to find similar work (same line, same area, similar wage). If no such work is available thereafter, a claimant must lessen his demands and broaden his job search.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| refusal of work |
reasonable period of time |
|
|
Summary:
Work offered on day and evening shifts. Since claimant had no pattern of evening shift, 27(3) is irrelevant, so should be prepared to accept day shift as well. A subsequent pattern is of no help.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| refusal of work |
babysitting arrangements |
|
|
Summary:
Babysitter available in evenings only, so refused work on day and evening shifts. Claimant's lengthy unemployment is irrelevant. No pattern of evening work. As per BERTRAND, lack of babysitter for day work is not good cause.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
job search |
warning before disentitlement |
|
Summary:
Available for evening work, no babysitter during the day. There is no doubt that the Commission should have informed her that she would not be entitled to benefits. [refusal of work at issue, not availability for work]
