| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant reported that he had not worked on his own account and that he had no connection to the employer, whereas he owned 25% of the employer’s shares. Umpire upheld the Board of Referees’ decision which found that the claimant was not credible and had made a false statement. FCA found that the claimant failed to show that the BOR and the Umpire came to an unreasonable decision in ratifying the 300% penalty imposed. It added that the BOR and Umpire are authorized to intervene only if it is shown that the Commission exercised its discretionary power in a non-judicial manner. This was not shown.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
discretionary powers |
|
Summary:
Claimant reported that he had not worked on his own account and that he had no connection to the employer, whereas he owned 25% of the employer’s shares. Umpire upheld the Board of Referees’ decision which found that the claimant was not credible and had made a false statement. FCA found that the claimant failed to show that the BOR and the Umpire came to an unreasonable decision in ratifying the 300% penalty imposed. It added that the BOR and Umpire are authorized to intervene only if it is shown that the Commission exercised its discretionary power in a non-judicial manner. This was not shown.
