| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
errors in law |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant had failed to report to work and contact his employer by reason of his incarceration. As a result, the Commission denied him benefits on the basis that he had lost his employment due to misconduct. The BOR and the Umpire decided in favour of the claimant who successfully argued that while incarcerated he was unable to contact his employer, and that he had neither quit nor abandoned his employment. The Umpire added that the issue before the BOR should have been whether the claimant was available for work during his incarceration and that the BOR should reconsider the matter in light of s. 18(a) of the EIA. The FCA determined that the Umpire erred in concluding that this matter involved the application of s. 18(a) of the EIA. Furthermore, the FCA held that the Umpire applied the wrong test in determining whether there was misconduct on the part of the claimant.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| misconduct |
unexcused absences from work |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant had failed to report to work and contact his employer by reason of his incarceration. As a result, the Commission denied him benefits on the basis that he had lost his employment due to misconduct. The BOR and the Umpire decided in favour of the claimant who successfully argued that while incarcerated he was unable to contact his employer, and that he had neither quit nor abandoned his employment. The Umpire added that the issue before the BOR should have been whether the claimant was available for work during his incarceration and that the BOR should reconsider the matter in light of s. 18(a) of the EIA. The FCA determined that the Umpire erred in concluding that this matter involved the application of s. 18(a) of the EIA. Furthermore, the FCA held that the Umpire applied the wrong test in determining whether there was misconduct on the part of the claimant.
