Ford Motor Co v UCC
Digest no. 7.03
Cite as: Ford Motor Co v UCC, 316 Mich 468 (1947).
Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Drusilla Koski
Employer: Ford Motor Company
Docket no.: B4 3872 1751
Date of decision: January 6, 1947
SUPREME COURT HOLDING: “There is nothing in the statute to justify the conclusion that the legislature intended a claimant might limit his employment to certain hours of the day where the work he is qualified to perform is not likewise limited.”
FACTS: A bench hand on the afternoon shift was laid off for lack of work. She limited her availability to her customary shift, because she wished to be home when her two children prepared for school each day.
DECISION: The claimant is ineligible for benefits.
RATIONALE: “It will be noted that [S.] 28(1)(c) of the statute, quoted above in part, contemplates availability for work of the character that a claimant is qualified to perform and further requires availability for full-time work. The central thought in the subdivision has reference to the character of the labor for which a claimant is available. There is nothing in the statute to justify the conclusion that the legislature intended a claimant might limit his employment to certain hours of the day where the work he is qualified to perform is not likewise limited. It may be assumed that, in a so-called ‘around-the-clock’ operation, the work on different shifts does not vary in character. When claimant stated she would not accept work except on the afternoon shift, she clearly made herself unavailable for work of the character that she was qualified to perform.”
Digest Author: Board of Review (original digest here)
Digest Updated: 11/90