| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
decision of board |
implementation |
|
Summary:
The parties being at an impasse as to the meaning of the Board's decision, claimant requested a hearing from the Board to seek further clarification. The Board granted the request. The Board, even in the absence of specific statutory authority, had the jurisdiction to do what it did.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
decision ambiguous |
|
Summary:
The only issue has to do with the jurisdiction of the Board to make the second decision and to enter upon the exercise of clarifying or interpreting its earlier decision. There is no statutory mandate for the Board to do as it did, conditions provided in s. 86 not being met.
The parties being at an impasse as to the meaning of the Board's decision, claimant requested a hearing from the Board to seek further clarification. The Board granted the request. The Board, even in the absence of specific statutory authority, had the jurisdiction to do what it did.
Secondly, the fact that the Board undertook to clarify its earlier decision at the specific request of the present applicant cannot in itself confer jurisdiction if there is none in law.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
decision incomplete |
|
Summary:
The Board failed in a first decision to dispose of one of the issues before it. The statute does not specify any remedies which the Board is empowered to apply. It simply allowed the appeal without saying which of the decisions was bad. It should be allowed to complete its task.
