Hinga v Brown Co
Digest no. 7.06
Cite as: Hinga v Brown Co, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals of Michigan, issued January 25, 1980 (Docket No. B76 2157 50644).
Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Edward G. Hinga
Employer: Brown Company
Docket no.: B76 2157 50644
Date of decision: January 25, 1980
COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: Where an individual seeks supervisory and non-union work, but is willing to accept non-supervisory and union work, such preferences do not make the claimant unavailable for work.
FACTS: The claimant had previously worked as an unskilled laborer and as a shipping supervisor. He concentrated his work search on supervisory and non-union positions. The claimant contacted four employers in seven months. A waiver of seeking work was in effect.
DECISION: The claimant was available for work.
RATIONALE: “We hold, after reviewing the record as a whole, that the referee’s conclusion that plaintiff removed himself from the labor market is not supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence. The undisputed evidence showed that while plain tiff preferred supervisory work, he would take other work and while he preferred non-union work, he would accept union work. The referee erred when he held that this removed plaintiff from the labor market.”
“[T]he commission waived the seeking work requirement as to all claimants in Kalamazoo County from 5/25/75 to 7/17/76. Thus, plaintiff was entitled to rely on the representation that he need not seek work in order to be eligible for benefits.”
Digest Author: Board of Review (original digest here)
Digest Updated: 11/90