Toney v General Motors Corp
Digest no. 7.13
Cite as: Toney v General Motors Corp, unpublished opinion of the Michigan Employment Security Board of Review, issued December 5, 1979 (No. B77 19640 60610).
Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Albert Toney
Employer: General Motors Corporation
Docket no.: B77 19640 60610
Date of decision: December 5, 1979
BOARD OF REVIEW HOLDING: Where an individual’s principal occupation has been machine operator, and the claimant voluntarily retires and moves to an area in which such work is unavailable, the claimant is not available for work.
FACTS: “The claimant voluntarily retired from his employment as a machine operator with the involved employer on June 30, 1977.” He moved to Titusville, in Brevard County, Florida. “Claimant also testified that the area in Florida to which he relocated did not have any machine shops which offered the type of employment in which claimant had former work experience (T. of March 29, 1978 hearing p. 8).”
DECISION: The claimant does not meet the availability requirements of Section 28(1)(c) of the Act.
RATIONALE: “Claimant retired and moved to Florida. In doing so, he took himself out of a labor market which had substantial employment opportunities for persons in claimant’s job classification (machinist). He moved from an area of high job concentration in his employment classification to an area of low industrialization and few, if any, opportunities for a machinist. From the record, it is obvious that claimant was not genuinely attached to the labor market and not genuinely desirous of finding work which by previous experience he was qualified to perform.”
Digest Author: Board of Review (original digest here)
Digest Updated: 11/90