| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
absences from work |
|
|
Summary:
Disqualification reduced to 3 weeks as it was part-time employment. Maximum disqualification limited to most extreme cases. While it was irresponsible of claimant to absent himself as he did, it was to find full-time employment, so disqualification further reduced to 2 weeks.
Nothing to indicate any error of law. Claimant failed to report for one of his shifts and did not call. As a result he was replaced and when he returned there was simply no opening for him. Retroactive ruling.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
time limitation for recovery |
|
Summary:
As the notice of the overpayment was given on 20-10-83, it appears that the limitation period of 3 years under 35(4) would preclude recovery even if the appeal were resolved in favour of the Commission if appeal not disposed of before 20-10-86. Adjournment not granted.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
length |
|
Summary:
There is jurisprudence to the effect that if part-time work is lost through misconduct, disqualification should be reduced proportionately to the amount of work actually lost. In the absence of information, I assume it was half-time and disqualificationreduced to 3 weeks.
Disqualification reduced to 3 weeks as it was part-time work. Maximum disqualification limited to most extreme cases. While it was irresponsible of claimant to absent himself as he did, it was to find full-time work, so disqualification further reduced to 2 weeks.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
factual cases |
retroactive disqualification |
|
Summary:
Loss of part-time employment through misconduct. Disqualification reduced to 3 weeks due to part-time and then to 2 weeks due to extenuating circumstances.
