| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
number of hours required |
violation |
|
Summary:
The claimant had not worked the number of hours of insurable employment required because of a subsequent Notice of Violation. The Umpire stated that the fact that the Commission committed an error in its letter to the claimant advising him that he was receiving what was in fact a second Notice of Violation, does not have any incidence on the application of the Law and concluded that he had to suffer the consequences of such a violation.
