| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
just cause |
no reasonable alternative |
|
Summary:
We note that the Board made an incorrect statement with regard to the legal test for "just cause", stating that the Board must be concerned that the claimant had "absolutely no alternative" but to leave his job instead of "no reasonable alternative" to leaving the employment as provided in 28(4).
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
meaning |
Summary:
It is evident from the Board's decision that both the majority and minority view had been canvassed. Although the majority could have ruled otherwise, they chose to disbelieve claimant as to the cause for leaving his employment. The Umpire could not substitute the opinion of the majority for hers.
