| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| claim procedure |
requests for information |
|
|
Summary:
Claim on 27-9; disentitled for leaving voluntarily; he was asked for an explanation of this on 11-10; declared disentitled because of delay in responding. Disentitlement should not commence before 11-10; terminated on Tuesday, 13-11.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification and disentitlement |
|
|
Summary:
Nowhere in Act does it say that imposition of one penalty automatically rules out application of another. While cumulative penalties may appear harsh and unfair, penalties exist for a very specific reason.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
working conditions |
unsatisfactory |
|
Summary:
Clearly established in case law that dissatisfaction wtih conditions, whatever they be, is not sufficient, unless intolerable to point that employee has no choice but to leave.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
new employment |
delay between two jobs |
|
Summary:
Claimant must show that he found another employment before leaving or, at least, that he had very strong probability of finding employment in very near or immediate future. One month and a half is too long.
