Kenkel v Tremec Trading Co
Digest no. 4.30
Cite as: Kenkel v Tremec Trading Co, unissued opinion of the Oakland County Circuit Court, issued January 30, 1995 (Docket No. 94-476557).
Appeal pending: No
Claimants: Matthew Kenkel
Employer: Tremec Trading Co.
Docket no.: B93-05246-126675W
Date of decision: January 30, 1995
CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: Self-employment does not, per se, disqualify an individual from receiving benefits so long as they receive no remuneration and remain genuinely attached to the labor market.
FACTS: Claimant’s job with employer was eliminated in April 1992. At that time, Claimant purchased 50 percent interest in a real estate franchise. Claimant was not involved in day to day running of business, but did assist with long term planning. He received no compensation for services provided. He testified that he was at all times available for and seeking work. Any time he spent at the business was to increase the equity of his holding.
DECISION: Claimant was unemployed within the meaning of Section 48.
RATIONALE: Claimant’s situation was compared and contrasted with that of claimants in Phillips v UCC, 323 Mich 188 (1948) and Bolles v ESC, 361 Mich 378 (1960). Found to be similar to facts of Bolles which enunciated test of whether or not claimant remained genuinely attached to the labor market despite his self-employment. Distinguish from Phillips, because claimant had not returned to a profession in which he had previously worked and he earned no remuneration. Citing Bolles, the court noted the intent of the Act is to foster industry and self-help, not idleness and inactivity.
Digest Author: Board of Review (original digest here)
Digest Updated: 7/99