| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
without regard for material |
|
Summary:
The Board's decision was made in a perverse and capricious manner and without regard to the material before it. It failed to indicate why it did not accept what the doctor stated as to the period of claimant's incapacity, and nor did it speak of the claimant's admission that he is incapable of working.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
applicability |
definition |
|
Summary:
Standard availability has been described as the willingness to accept immediately any employment opportunity in one's work area by using any available means of transportation, without demanding anything more than what is suitable under the legislation in terms of type of work, wages, salary, hours.
In order to show that they are available, claimants must establish that they are willing and ready to accept any employment for which they are suited by skill, training or aptitude, and for which there is a normal demand in the labour market.
Standard availability has been described as the willingness to accept immediately any employment opportunity in one's work area by using any available means of transportation, without demanding anything more than what is suitable under the legislation in terms of type of work, wages, salary, hours.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
applicability |
definition |
incapacity |
Summary:
Capability is to be interpreted as meaning capable of performing work of some kind as an employee, as it is ordinarily done and under conditions in which employees under a contract of service ordinarily work. This will usually be related to the claimant's physical condition. A question of fact.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
meaning |
Summary:
The Board's decision was made in a perverse and capricious manner and without regard to the material before it. It failed to indicate why it did not accept what the doctor stated as to the period of claimant's incapacity, and nor did it speak of the claimant's admission that he is incapable of working.
