Summary of Issue: Warning Prior To Disentitlement

Decision 19011 Full Text of Decision 19011

No evidence that the Commission warned claimant that her UI might be jeopardized by not applying for the jobs (at lower wages than she expected). The lack of warning by the Commission in itself could warrant setting aside the disentitlement (4 disqualifications). [p._9]

Decision 18906 Full Text of Decision 18906

When the job search is inadequate, it has been held that some warning should be given. Not such a case here but refusal of a specific employment opportunity. Certainly not the CEIC's responsibility to do more than they did here. Once work is refused, disqualification must follow.

Decision 14992 Full Text of Decision 14992

Claimant felt he was never given any information about ss.40(3) which states one might have to accept lower wages after some time of unemployment. There is no duty on the Commission to provide that information to any claimants. Law has been this way formany years.

Decision 14132 Full Text of Decision 14132

Claimant feels aggrieved because not warned he could lose benefits. As a matter of practice, much fairer to claimant if Commission would adopt a procedure of issuing warnings when job referrals given out. This should be a normal administrative practice.

Decision 12739 Full Text of Decision 12739

I agree it would have been fairer if the officer who referred her to the job had made it clear she was in jeopardy of losing benefits if... Nevertheless, this is not grounds for me to interfere with the Board's decision.