| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
bonus |
signing contract |
|
Summary:
The claimant was paid $1,000 in the form of a contract signing bonus. According to the Commission, the triggering event was the signature of the new Master Agreement and the bonus was allocated in the week of the transaction. The Court stated that in questions of mixed fact and law, an Umpire can only intervene if the BOR's interpretation is unreasonable. The Court found that the BOR's application of the facts to the law was not unreasonable in deciding that the bonus dealt with past services and concluded that the Umpire could not intervene.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
The claimant was paid $1,000 in the form of a contract signing bonus. According to the Commission, the triggering event was the signature of the new Master Agreement and the bonus was allocated in the week of the transaction. The Court stated that in questions of mixed fact and law, an Umpire can only intervene if the BOR's interpretation is unreasonable. The Court found that the BOR's application of the facts to the law was not unreasonable in deciding that the bonus dealt with past services and concluded that the Umpire could not intervene.
