| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| refusal of work |
existence of refusal |
|
|
Summary:
The Board believes that the interview was confrontational which might explain the contradictions, and claimant did not bother to ask particulars or expressed refusal before being given particulars. No grounds on which an Umpire could interfere. [p. 6]
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| teaching |
availability for work |
summer months |
|
Summary:
A teacher must seek work during summer of a kind in which s/he is really employable e.g. camp counsellor or other types of 2-month duration. Job search with employers seeking long-term is a sham and clearly not genuine, unless one is prepared to leave teaching. [p. 4-5]
Claim filed 27-6. Looking for teaching jobs only at yearly salary of $35000 in Hamilton. No job search. Disentitlement clearly supported by the evidence. [p. 3]
Repeatedly said by Umpires: teachers cannot collect UI in summer while waiting for new school year unless genuinely available. Usual working year is 10 months. That is the nature of employment a teacher has chosen to pursue. Thus often not really available in the summer. [p. 4]
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
not binding for future |
|
Summary:
Claimant has collected UI during the summer before when not employed as supply teacher. There was then no attempt by the Commission to enforce the UI rules. Naturally she was upset in the summer 1986 when someone tried to impose such requirements on her. [p. 4]
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
job search |
effective date |
|
Summary:
Since the job search list was presented today, the Board terminates the disentitlement that day. The search list however lists contacts much prior to that date. If the job search is genuine, the disentitlement must be removed, not terminated. [p. 7]
