| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
proof |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant participated in an hour banking scheme. When work slowed down, the claimant’s banked hours were paid to him as a salary. Commission allocated to the weeks in question the earnings the claimant had received from the overtime hours banked. BOR overturned this decision, judging that it was based on figures and other considerations of unknown provenance. FCA found that the Umpire had erred in refusing to intervene on the grounds of the credibility of the witnesses where the BOR had wrongly assessed the evidence: far from being erroneous, as the BOR asserted, all the figures (overtime hours and weeks in which the remuneration had been paid) provided by the employer’s accountant and endorsed by the employer were acknowledged by the claimant. It was unreasonable to see this as a question of credibility when the facts introduced in evidence were not challenged, were consistent and were even acknowledged.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| proof |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
Summary:
Claimant participated in an hour banking scheme. When work slowed down, the claimant’s banked hours were paid to him as a salary.
Commission allocated to the weeks in question the earnings the claimant had received from the overtime hours banked. BOR overturned this decision, judging that it was based on figures and other considerations of unknown provenance. FCA found that the Umpire had erred in refusing to intervene on the grounds of the credibility of the witnesses where the BOR had wrongly assessed the evidence: far from being erroneous, as the BOR asserted, all the figures (overtime hours and weeks in which the remuneration had been paid) provided by the employer’s accountant and endorsed by the employer were acknowledged by the claimant. It was unreasonable to see this as a question of credibility when the facts introduced in evidence were not challenged, were consistent and were even acknowledged.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| proof |
penalties |
knowingly |
|
Summary:
Claimant participated in an hour banking scheme. When work slowed down, the claimant’s banked hours were paid to him as a salary. Penalties were imposed upon the claimant for failing to declare the earnings received in this manner. FCA found that the Umpire had failed to understand the issue before himself and the BOR in ruling that the Commission had not succeeded in proving that the claimant had worked during the weeks at issue. The Commission did not criticize the claimant for having worked during the weeks in question, but for failing to declare any earnings although he had received a salary. Such was the nature of the false statements attributed to the claimant. The claimant admitted to having received remuneration during the weeks at issue, though he had originally stated that he had earned nothing. The falseness of the statements had not only been admitted, but had resulted from a scheme that the claimant also acknowledged. FCA ruled that the Umpire should have recognized this and upheld the penalty.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| proof |
penalties |
proof |
|
Summary:
Claimant participated in an hour banking scheme. When work slowed down, the claimant’s banked hours were paid to him as a salary. Penalties were imposed upon the claimant for failing to declare the earnings received in this manner. FCA found that the Umpire had failed to understand the issue before himself and the BOR in ruling that the Commission had not succeeded in proving that the claimant had worked during the weeks at issue. The Commission did not criticize the claimant for having worked during the weeks in question, but for failing to declare any earnings although he had received a salary. Such was the nature of the false statements attributed to the claimant. The claimant admitted to having received remuneration during the weeks at issue, though he had originally stated that he had earned nothing. The falseness of the statements had not only been admitted, but had resulted from a scheme that the claimant also acknowledged. FCA ruled that the Umpire should have recognized this and upheld the penalty.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
earnings |
banking hours |
|
Summary:
Claimant participated in an hour banking scheme. When work slowed down, the claimant’s banked hours were paid to him as a salary. Penalties were imposed upon the claimant for failing to declare the earnings received in this manner. FCA found that the Umpire had failed to understand the issue before himself and the BOR in ruling that the Commission had not succeeded in proving that the claimant had worked during the weeks at issue. The Commission did not criticize the claimant for having worked during the weeks in question, but for failing to declare any earnings although he had received a salary. Such was the nature of the false statements attributed to the claimant. The claimant admitted to having received remuneration during the weeks at issue, though he had originally stated that he had earned nothing. The falseness of the statements had not only been admitted, but had resulted from a scheme that the claimant also acknowledged. FCA ruled that the Umpire should have recognized this and upheld the penalty.
