| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
violation |
|
|
Summary:
BOR held that in the case of a first offence, the penalty was sufficient and the Commission should have exercised its discretion by simply issuing a warning. Umpire held that the BOR erred in law and exceeded its jurisdiction. The Act does not allow a notice of very serious violation given by the Commission to be varied and replaced by a warning.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
BOR held that in the case of a first offence, the penalty was sufficient and the Commission should have exercised its discretion by simply issuing a warning. Umpire held that the BOR erred in law and exceeded its jurisdiction. The Act does not allow a notice of very serious violation given by the Commission to be varied and replaced by a warning.
