| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Summary:
By deciding to rescind the penalty on the ground that he was applying the Morin Judgment, the Umpire committed an error of law in that he failed to apply the very first requirement established by this Court in the Morin case: one must first conclude that the Commission exercised its discretionary power in a non-judicial manner when it imposed a penalty upon the claimant. No reversible error made by the BOR. Umpire merely substituted his own opinion for that of the Commission and the BOR.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
remove |
|
Summary:
By deciding to rescind the penalty on the ground that he was applying the Morin Judgment, the Umpire committed an error of law in that he failed to apply the very first requirement established by this Court in the Morin case: one must first conclude that the Commission exercised its discretionary power in a non-judicial manner when it imposed a penalty upon the claimant. No reversible error made by the BOR. Umpire merely substituted his own opinion for that of the Commission and the BOR.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
By deciding to rescind the penalty on the ground that he was applying the Morin Judgment, the Umpire committed an error of law in that he failed to apply the very first requirement established by this Court in the Morin case: one must first conclude that the Commission exercised its discretionary power in a non-judicial manner when it imposed a penalty upon the claimant. No reversible error made by the BOR. Umpire merely substituted his own opinion for that of the Commission and the BOR.
