| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
proof |
|
|
Summary:
The documentary evidence shows that he operated a business on a continuing basis. He subsequently says that he never intended to do this. Faced with these contradictions, the only possible conclusion was to hold that he did not prove that he was unemployed.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
without regard for material |
|
Summary:
The documentary evidence shows that claimant operated a business on a continuing basis. The Board does not mention it and simply accepts claimant's statement that he never intended to operate a business. The Umpire was correct in intervening.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
hearings |
tape-recording |
|
Summary:
States he testified at the hearing and evidenced that the information on file was erroneous. All we know is what the Board reported. In the absence of a transcript or other evidence, the Umpire could conclude that the Board accurately reported what transpired at the hearing.
