| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
restrictions |
specific employer |
|
Summary:
The claimant indicated that she had worked as a student monitor for 11 years and worked from 10 to 25 hours a week. She could not search for another job because she worked every day. She did not want to leave her employment for a full-time job. She added that she did not look for employment after her benefit period was established, given that she would be returning to her employer in September. The claimant has not shown her availability for work and is disentitled from benefits as of October 19. 2009. In her notice of appeal to the BOR, she added that her worked suited her health and that she did not want to search for another job. The BOR reviewed the evidence and allowed the claimant's appeal. On appeal from the BOR' decision, the Commission argued that the Board erred in fact and in law. The unequivocal evidence in the docket showed that the claimant intended to keep her part-time job. Consequently, the Commission's appeal is allowed by the Umpire. The Board's decision is rescinded and the Commission's decision is upheld.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
restrictions |
part-time work |
|
Summary:
The claimant indicated that she had worked as a student monitor for 11 years and worked from 10 to 25 hours a week. She could not search for another job because she worked every day. She did not want to leave her employment for a full-time job. She added that she did not look for employment after her benefit period was established, given that she would be returning to her employer in September. The claimant has not shown her availability for work and is disentitled from benefits as of October 19. 2009. In her notice of appeal to the BOR, she added that her worked suited her health and that she did not want to search for another job. The BOR reviewed the evidence and allowed the claimant's appeal. On appeal from the BOR' decision, the Commission argued that the Board erred in fact and in law. The unequivocal evidence in the docket showed that the claimant intended to keep her part-time job. Consequently, the Commission's appeal is allowed by the Umpire. The Board's decision is rescinded and the Commission's decision is upheld.
