| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
decision not to reconsider |
|
Summary:
It may be that CEIC could have disentitled her because her actions and attitude showed that she was not seriously interested in working. But it chose the fact she wished to work days only. The CEIC must choose its grounds carefully. It cannot switch grounds once appealed. [p. 5]
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
incompatible situations |
leave requested |
|
Summary:
She had been on regular UI since August and on maternity before. Chose not to return to previous job. Disentitled starting October. It may be that she preferred to stay home with new baby, a preference which is natural. But one is not entitled to UI unless serious about working.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
job search |
warning before disentitlement |
|
Summary:
When CEIC's actions are such as to lead one to believe that the restrictions are acceptable, a clear warning must be given that availability is to be broadened. The CEIC cannot, by its conduct, acquiesce in such restrictions and then later demand returnof benefits paid. [p. 6]
Disentitled to 10-86 in 1-87. Restriction to day work had existed since 8-86. Not warned at 10-86 interview that she had to broaden her availability. UI continued to be paid until 1-87. It is to avoid such situations that Umpires have held that a warning must be given. [p. 6]
