| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| refusal of work |
questions to examine |
|
|
Summary:
The CEIC says there is no evidence that conditions of work were less favourable under 40(3). Claimant simply says she wants full-time work and part-time will not cover her expenses. Thus, it is not necessary to decide this issue since unsuitability of employment is neither asserted nor established.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| refusal of work |
good cause |
|
|
Summary:
The Umpire erred in deciding that the issue was whether claimant acted in good faith. Ss.40(1) uses the words "good cause". A claimant can act in good faith but still not have good cause for his or her action. Case referred back to Umpire.
