| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
claimants treated differently |
|
|
Summary:
This Board however made its decision, as it had to, on the evidence which was before it. That does not, of course, preclude another Board from arriving at a different conclusion depending on what evidence is before it and what view it takes of that evidence.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
loss of employment |
prior to stoppage |
|
Summary:
I see nothing wrong with company offering work even though it was aware that employees had scheduled a strike. An offer made in the face of an impending strike with a view to having employees disentitled if they refuse would give rise to that result if offer otherwise legitimate.
Worker recalled to work after seasonal layoff to commence on day of strike. There is no doubt in my mind that had he refused to accept an offer of work from the company he would have been properly disentitled. However, the Board accepted that the recallwas a sham.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
After careful examination I can say that I would not have come to the same conclusion. This however is not a ground for setting aside the Board's decision. There was evidence before the Board to reach its conclusion. Under the circumstances I have no authority to set it aside.
