Abbeg v Russell, Burdsall & Ward, Inc – 4.15

Abbeg v Russell, Burdsall & Ward, Inc
Digest no. 4.15

Section 48

Cite as: Abbeg v Russell, Burdsall & Ward, Inc, unpublished opinion of the Branch Circuit Court, issued October 5, 1982 (Docket No. 81-12-581 AE).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Clarence Abbeg, et al.
Employer: Russell, Burdsall & Ward, Inc.
Docket no.: B80 18840 75094, et al.
Date of decision: October 5, 1982

View/download the full decision

CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: Where “the employer complies substantially with the requirements contained in Commission Administrative Rule 302, the purpose of the notice is accomplished.”

FACTS: The claimants were laid off from August 3 through August 16. The employer had scheduled a plant shut down for this period. “The claimants and their union president were given advance notice by the employer of the intended shutdown and on April 22, 1980, the employer posted notice on the plant’s bulletin board which was followed by the employer’s letter to the union president. … [N]either of the written notices contained any statement regarding any possible effect of the shutdown or payment thereof on the (claimant’s) eligibility for unemployment benefits.”

DECISION: The notice was sufficient to comply with Commission Administrative Rule 302.

RATIONALE: “[T]he employer did comply substantially with the requirements contained in Rule 302 so that the purpose of the notice was accomplished. Written notices failed to mention any possible effect that the August, 1980 shutdown would have on the claimant’s eligibility for unemployment compensation, but in other respects the notice was clear. The dates of shutdown were set forth as was the fact that this was considered a ‘vacation’ shutdown. The letter which the employer sent to the union president further clarified that employees would be required to take vacation during the shutdown to the extent that their vacation had been earned. Further, the employees must have understood the shutdown to be a vacation and circulated a petition of protest which showed they had such understanding.” The payments in question are remuneration under Section 48 of the Act.

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