| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
clear and simple language |
|
|
Summary:
Because questions posed on reporting cards are so simple, it is rightly held that claimants of very minimal education are not to be excused from their incorrect answers. It is different when one could not even read the alphabet in which those simple questions are posed. [p. 10]
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
working conditions |
salary |
|
Summary:
That a claimant should be disqualified because he will not be so used [reduction of wages from that originally offered: $4 instead of $6 an hour] by an employer who engages him, but breaks his word, would be offensively against the public interest.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
length |
|
Summary:
When Parliament imposes a maximum penalty of any kind, it prescribes that maximum only for the grossest, most flagrant cases. That maximum ought rarely to be imposed because it is the extreme penalty. The vast majority of cases ought to start off at 3 or 4 weeks. [p. 8]
