| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
without regard for material |
|
Summary:
Claimants admitted that the alleged facts caused their dismissal. BOR went against the jurisprudence in overlooking these facts and their interpretation of the jurisprudence was erroneous in law and in fact and was made in a perverse or capricious manner and without regard for the material before it.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
error by board |
|
Summary:
Claimants admitted that the alleged facts caused their dismissal. BOR went against the jurisprudence in overlooking these facts and their interpretation of the jurisprudence was erroneous in law and in fact and was made in a perverse or capricious manner and without regard for the material before it.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
credibility |
|
Summary:
Aware that an Umpire’s opinion cannot be substituted for that of a BOR when an assessment of credibility of the evidence on a question of fact is involved, Umpire deemed that the facts uncontested by the claimants as justification for their dismissal went beyond an assessment of credibility.
