| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
voluntary layoff |
|
Summary:
Claimant alleged that departure was part of a workforce reduction program; BOR agreed. Error of law, according to the Umpire. An explicit piece of evidence on record indicates that the employer's policy of encouraging retirement did not have the effect of protecting the other employees' jobs. In addition, the employer confirmed that no one would have been laid off, even if no employee had accepted the offer made.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
applicability |
workforce reduction |
|
Summary:
Claimant alleged that departure was part of a workforce reduction program; BOR agreed. Error of law, according to the Umpire. An explicit piece of evidence on record indicates that the employer's policy of encouraging retirement did not have the effect of protecting the other employees' jobs. In addition, the employer confirmed that no one would have been laid off, even if no employee had accepted the offer made.
