| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
to take care the childrens |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant and his wife were both employed. His mother-in-law cared for their two young children while they were at work but she returned to India. The claimant quit his job to care for the children. The Commission ruled that it could not pay him benefits (1) because he had voluntarily left his employment without just cause and (2) because he had not proved his availability for employment. Claimants who establish just cause for leaving an employment still have to prove their availability for work in order to remain entitled to benefits. Difficulties in arranging childcare or the lack of childcare is itself evidence that one is not available for work. The appeal is dismissed.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
Not available and not otherwise available |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant and his wife were both employed. His mother-in-law cared for their two young children while they were at work but she returned to India. The claimant quit his job to care for the children. The Commission ruled that it could not pay him benefits (1) because he had voluntarily left his employment without just cause and (2) because he had not proved his availability for employment. Claimants who establish just cause for leaving an employment still have to prove their availability for work in order to remain entitled to benefits. Difficulties in arranging childcare or the lack of childcare is itself evidence that one is not available for work. The appeal is dismissed.
