| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
rate of benefit |
computation |
|
Summary:
Benefit rate calculated at 54% instead of the 55% due to the fact that claimant since June 30 1996 had received 22 weeks of weekly benefits. Claimant challenged the reduction for the reason he had to repay an overpayment of $4000 which, he contended, had the effect of reducing the period he received benefits to less than 20 weeks. Held by Umpire that BOR erred in law in not applying SS.38(3) of the EIA.
