Laya v Cebar Construction Co – 10.05

Laya v Cebar Construction Co
Digest no. 10.05

Section 29(1)(a)

Cite as: Laya v Cebar Construction Co, 101 Mich App 26 (1980).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: David Laya
Employer: Cebar Construction
Docket no.: B76 10141 54586
Date of decision: October 23, 1980

View/download the full decision

COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: “Voluntary” as used in Section 29(1)(a) must connote a decision based upon a choice between alternatives which ordinary men would find reasonable.

FACTS: The claimant lived in Warren, Michigan with his family. In 1976 he was laid off and could not find work in his local area. Through his union he learned of work in Cincinnati, Ohio. He accepted the job, lived in Ohio during the week and drove home (272 miles) on weekends. The distance created difficulties within the family and trouble in making the drive. He quit after 25 days.

DECISION: Claimant is not disqualified for benefits pursuant to Section 29(1)(a).

RATIONALE: Where the claimant was not faced with a choice between alternatives that ordinary persons would consider reasonable, his choice was “no choice at all,” and his leaving was involuntary and non-disqualifying.

Digest Author: Board of Review (original digest here)
Digest Updated: 6/91