| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| refusal of work |
personal constraints |
after confinement |
|
Summary:
Held by the Umpire that an offer to work evenings was a material change of working conditions that made her previous employment unsuitable under 27(2)(c). The Umpire erred. Para. 27(2)(c) was clearly not relevant as it deals with other than one's usual job. Para. 27(2)(b) was the relevant provision.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| refusal of work |
refusal of work |
good cause |
|
Summary:
Even if the Umpire had applied the correct paragraph - 27(2)(b) - he could not rely on it, as he did rely on 27(2)(c), to establish that the claimant had good cause for not accepting employment. All the provisions of ss. 27(2) relate to what is suitable employment, not to what is good cause.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
natural justice and error in law or in fact |
|
Summary:
The application is allowed, the decision of the Umpire is set aside and the matter is referred back to him to be decided on the basis that the decision of the Board was not vitiated by any error of the kind mentioned in s. 80 of the UI Act.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| refusal of work |
suitability |
defined |
|
Summary:
As per Umpire, the Board did not take into account 27(2)(c), which describes certain forms of employment not suitable. That paragraph was clearly not relevant as it deals with other than one's usual job. Claimant here had been offered a return to her previous job. 27(2)(b) was the relevant provision.
