| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| refusal of work |
number of disqualifications |
|
|
Summary:
Working on call, claimant refused employment on four occasions. Two seven-week disqualifications imposed. Thought that if she accepted a one-day replacement offer, she could lose a long-term replacement position if such an opening should arise. Even though she was informed to the contrary by the employer, claimant continued to refuse one-day replacements. Umpire determined that the employment was suitable and that the claimant was subject to disqualification for each refusal of work without just cause. Claimant's appeal summarily dismissed by the FCA.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
denial of natural justice |
|
Summary:
The claimant filed a complaint before the FCA because, in allowing her own preliminary objection and upholding her appeal, the BOR deprived her of her right to a hearing. However, when she appeared before the Umpire, the claimant did not attempt to correct the situation that she herself had created. FCA determined that the Umpire had not breached the rules of natural justice and dismissed the claimant's application for judicial review.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
refusal of work |
good cause |
|
Summary:
Working on call, claimant refused employment on four occasions. Two seven-week disqualifications imposed. Thought that if she accepted a one-day replacement offer, she could lose a long-term replacement position if such an opening should arise. Even though she was informed to the contrary by the employer, claimant continued to refuse one-day replacements. Umpire determined that the employment was suitable and that the claimant was subject to disqualification for each refusal of work without just cause. Claimant's appeal summarily dismissed by the FCA.
