| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| refusal of work |
reasonable period of time |
|
|
Summary:
A reasonable time is provided under 27(3). It applies in cases of an offer other than in usual employment. No similar requirement for suitable work under 27(2)(b). The Board's decision that 85% of former rate was suitable after 9 weeks is not perverse. No need to consider 27(3).
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| refusal of work |
good cause |
|
|
Summary:
The test of good cause, now well settled by UI cases (e.g. CUBs 14676, 12232), is whether the claimant acted in a manner which a reasonable person would normally be expected to follow in similar circumstances.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| refusal of work |
prospect of other work |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant preferred comparable work to most recent employment, work with greater permanence than the 2-month term available. She thought those goals were more effectively pursued if she did not apply for the short-term appointment. Those goals are laudable but not good cause.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| refusal of work |
refusal to apply |
|
|
Summary:
There was no assurance that the appointment would have been offered to her if she had applied but it was her own decision which precluded any possibility of an offer. She could have applied, but she did not. The 2-week disqualification is proper.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| refusal of work |
wages or salary |
|
|
Summary:
A reasonable time is provided under 27(3). It applies in cases of an offer other than in usual employment. No similar requirement for suitable work under 27(2)(b). The Board's decision that 85% of former rate was suitable after 9 weeks is not perverse. No need to consider 27(3).
