| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
misinformation from Commission |
|
|
Summary:
I have no doubt that claimant's evidence is credible, that he phoned the Commission seeking information and the response he got led him to believe that he was ineligible. Not familiar with the system. Had paid premiums for 25 years. [p._4]
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
constitution of board |
member ineligible |
|
Summary:
Notice of hearing not received by claimant until after decision of Board. New hearing held by same panel. Same decision. Having the same panel rehear the case leads to an apprehension of bias. Ss.80(a) not met. S.81 used by Umpire to render the decisionin place of the Board.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
statement of facts |
as a requirement |
|
Summary:
The Board merely found that his reasons for delay in making a claim do not suffice. Ss.79(2) not met. I do not know whether the Board simply did not believe him, or whether they believed him, but decided that the facts as explained by him did not constitute good cause. [p. 2]
