Corney v Amstaff PEO, Inc – 10.67

Corney v Amstaff PEO, Inc
Digest no. 10.67

Section 29(1)(a)

Cite as: Corney v Amstaff PEO, Inc, Wayne Circuit Court, No. 96-645985-AE (April 28, 1997).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Joan G. Corney
Employer: Amstaff PEO, Inc.
Docket no.: B96-00644-139329
Date of decision: April 28, 1997

View/download the full decision

CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: An employee’s leaving is non-disqualifying when under the totality of the circumstances, the employer’s course of conduct precludes the employee from performing the job in an effective and efficient manner.

FACTS: The claimant was the only sales representative for the employer, a food service company. The claimant called on prospective clients for vending machine and cafeteria food service. The employer excluded the claimant from information concerning changes in the business and changes in clientele. The event causing the claimant to leave concerned a tour of the employer’s plant for a prospective client. On the day of the tour, the claimant’s manager informed her the employer would no longer prepare its own food. The claimant felt the proposal she wrote for the prospective client, which stated the employer prepared the food, and which was submitted to her manager a week before the tour, was a sham, and the decision not to inform her about the change an insult to her credibility.

DECISION: The claimant is not disqualified for benefits.

RATIONALE: The court looked at the cumulative effect of the employment environment to which the claimant testified. “Specifically, the court finds compelling the Appellant’s testimony about the hostile attitude of her superiors, the changes in her working conditions, the lack of support from her immediate supervisor, including the failure to keep the Appellant apprised of changes in the company’s products which she was supposed to be selling, and finally the major change in the operation of the business that precipitated the Appellant’s quitting . . . .” The court does not believe that a reasonable person should be required to lie or otherwise dissemble to prospective clients as a condition of employment. The claimant’s supervisor testified at the hearing and stated “he did not believe it was necessary to inform the Appellant of a major change in the business operations,” despite the fact he knew she was making a presentation. The court also concluded that the claimant did not have to follow any complaint process pursuant to Johnides v St Lawrence Hospital, 184 Mich App 172 (1990).

Digest Author: Board of Review (original digest here)
Digest Updated:
7/99