| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
benevolent work |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant is a co-founder and employee of a visually impaired association. Because of financial difficulties, the Association stopped paying the claimant but she continued to work. She was considered not unemployed. BOR concluded that she had a vested financial interest in that she was safeguarding and maintaining her future employment with the Association. Umpire ruled that it was community work with no empoyee-employer relationship and allowed the claimant's appeal. Held by the Court that the umpire had substituted his own finding of fact in place of the BOR's finding.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
work without earnings |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant is a co-founder and employee of a visually impaired association. Because of financial difficulties, the Association stopped paying the claimant but she continued to work. She was considered not unemployed. BOR concluded that she had a vested financial interest in that she was safeguarding and maintaining her future employment with the Association. Umpire ruled that it was community work with no empoyee-employer relationship and allowed the claimant's appeal. Held by the Court that the umpire had substituted his own finding of fact in place of the BOR's finding.
