| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| refusal of work |
prospect of other work |
|
|
Summary:
Clmt refused a job offer in his trade as a tinsmith and chose to wait for an uncertain offer from his former employer. Umpire found that the clmt did not act as a reasonable and prudent person would have under similar circumstances. He did not prove that he had been caught between two employers making similar job offers.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
natural justice |
free of bias |
|
Summary:
Clamt alleged that he had reasonable grounds to believe that the chairperson of the board had not fulfill his obligation of impartiality and had an aggressive attitude toward him during the hearing. Grounds based on fear of bias must be serious and it has to be demonstrated that natural justice has been violated. Since he refused to produce the recording of the hearing, the clmt was unable to prove that he had not received an impartial hearing.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
job search |
recall or other probable employment |
|
Summary:
Clmt refused a job offer in his trade as a tinsmith and chose to wait for an uncertain offer from his former employer. He alleged that he had demonstrated his availability by presenting a list that was not specific in terms of dates and interviews. Umpire found that the clmt was keeping himself available for a single employer who, at the time, had no work to offer him.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
applicability |
relation with refusal of work |
|
Summary:
Claimant refused a job offer in his trade as a tinsmith and chose to wait for an uncertain offer from his former employer. He alleged that he had demonstrated his availability by presenting a list that was not specific in terms of dates and interviews. Referring to Michel (A.692.92), Umpire found that a claimant who is disqualified for refusing employment may occasionally act in a manner which justifies disentitlement for non-availability.
