| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
clear and simple language |
|
|
Summary:
The reporting cards are simple enough to complete. If an answer to a question "Did you work - Yes or no?" turns out to be false, it is difficult for anyone to be persuaded that the false answer was not knowingly given.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
|
|
Summary:
The scale of penalty allowed is up to 3 times the rate of benefit. The Commission's decision was to impose a penalty of one-half, a summary disposition which should be of some consolation to the claimant.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
rationale |
|
|
Summary:
It is a disposition which at the same time assures the continuing integrity of an UI scheme when its administration must so often rely on voluntary disclosure by individual claimants.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
proof |
need for an explanation |
|
Summary:
It is common sense when an answer of this nature [Did you work? No.] turns out to be false to impose on a claimant the burden of giving some reasonable or rational explanation. Not on the Commission to prove beyond reasonable doubt.
