General Foods Corp v Nelson
Digest no. 4.12
Cite as: General Foods Corp v Nelson, unpublished opinion of the Calhoun County Circuit Court, issued June 18, 1980 (Docket No. B78 716 60234).
Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Nella L. Nelson
Employer: General Foods Corporation
Docket no.: B78 716 60234
Date of decision: June 18, 1980
CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: Where the lack of a “sufficient method of communication with the company” results in lost remuneration in excess of an individual’s benefit rate, the claimant is ineligible under Section 48 and 28(1)(c) of the Act.
FACTS: A laid-off production worker could have earned $536.00 in two weeks, as a substitute for absentees. She missed the work because she had no telephone and the employer was unsuccessful in efforts to contact her via a relative whose telephone number she had given.
DECISION: The claimant is not eligible for benefits.
RATIONALE: “The Board of Review stated: ‘The employer was not attempting to contact the claimant regarding full-time suitable work.’
“The Board of Review did not define ‘full-time’ work. Obviously 8 hours a day is full-time work that day, 40 hours a week is full-time work that week.
“The Board of Review stated: ‘The MESC Act does not require an employee to be available at a moments notice for emergency call-in work.’
“The Board of Review interpreted the requirements of the act in a different fashion than the Referee, by simply characterizing the practice of the company by the use of terms of disparagement such as ’emergency,’ ‘assistance work’ and ‘moments notice.’ Evidently neither the union nor the employees took exception to this practice.”
Digest Author: Board of Review (original digest here)
Digest Updated: 11/90