Baggett v. Riverside Osteopathic Hospital
Digest No. 15.37
Cite as: Baggett v. Riverside Osteopathic Hospital, Wayne Circuit Court, No. 98-820404-AE (February 19, 1999).
Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Shelby Baggett, et al.
Employer: Riverside Osteopathic Hospital
Docket no.: 98-820404-AE
Date of decision: February 19, 1999
HOLDING: Claimants who were on strike had not been “permanently displaced,” and therefore a labor dispute was the cause of their unemployment, which disqualified claimants for benefits under Section 29(8)(a)(i) of the MES Act.
FACTS: Claimants went on strike May 24, 1990 and returned to work on October 19, 1990. After July 8, 1990, the employer began hiring employees who subsequently became “permanent” employees. From the date the strike began to the end of the strike, positions for the striking employees were available upon their return. Claimants were returned to their positions after the strike. During the strike, claimants applied for unemployment benefits. The Board of Review determined claimants disqualified for benefits.
DECISION: The circuit court affirmed the Board of Review’s decision, which found the claimant to be disqualified for benefits due under section 29(8)(a)(i) of the MES Act.
RATIONALE: Section 29(8) of the MES Act reads in relevant part: “(a) An individual is disqualified from receiving benefits for a week in which the individual’s total or partial unemployment is due to either of the following: (i) A labor dispute in active progress at the place at which the individual is or was last employed, or a shutdown or start-up operation caused by that labor dispute.” The circuit court read the Michigan Supreme Court case of Plymouth Stamping v. Lipshu, 436 Mich. 1 (1990), to suggest that section 29(8) means, “If there is a position open for a striking worker, he/she is ineligible for unemployment benefits.” But, if claimants were permanently displaced then the labor dispute would no longer be the cause of their unemployment, and the claimants would thus be eligible for benefits. Here, the circuit court determined that the striking employees had permanent positions to return to and and that those employees were, in fact, returned to those positions at the end of the strike. Further, these positions were available to claimants throughout the strike. Thus, the Board of Review’s conclusion that claimants were not permanently displaced was supported by substantial evidence.
Digest Author: Adam Kleven, Michigan Law, Class of 2018
Digest Updated: 3/27/2016