| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
from spouse |
|
Summary:
Argument: the spouse was interviewed to determine her rights to UI, her communications with her husband were privileged and her statement not allowed in a court of law. MILLS is not a direct answer to whether spousal privilege should be recognized. Common law not applicable.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| interruption of earnings |
conditions required |
7 days without work |
|
Summary:
Elected president and Chief Business Officer of a local union who continued to do the paper work for the union without pay due to lack of funds, while his wife was hired at a lower salary by the union.
It is submitted that it would be unreasonable to characterize someone as "working" when not being paid. I reject that argument. Reg. 37 refers to interruption of earnings and interruption of work. If intended that "work" meant paid work, there would be no need for a distinction.
