| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
restrictions |
transportation difficulties |
|
Summary:
Work offered for 3 weeks. No transportation. He had expressed a willingness to work anywhere. The implications of the decision are startling: when public transportation is not available, one must purchase a car. It should have been dealt with under s.27, not s.14(a).
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
employment about to terminate |
|
Summary:
If s.27 had been invoked it is likely that the usual practice, where a temporary job is involved, of reducing the maximum 6 weeks disqualification to the expected duration of the temporary employment would have been imposed. [obiter dictum]
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
issue not recognized |
decision not to reconsider |
|
Summary:
The fact situation here should have been dealt with under s.27, not 14(a). However, there is no authority to convert a notice of disqualification given for one reason into a disqualification for another. See VON FINDENIGG.
