Apple Crest Farms v Gardner
Digest no. 17.18
Cite as: Apple Crest Farms v Gardner, unpublished opinion of the Wayne County Circuit Court, issued June 4, 1990 (Docket No. 90-002881-AE).
Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Timothy Gardner
Employer: Apple Crest Farms
Docket no.: B87-16551-109686
Date of decision: June 4, 1990
CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: The services the claimant performed (cutting the grass and cleaning the grounds of a plot of land where no active farming had taken place for several years) were not agricultural labor and therefore, not excluded “employment.”
FACTS: The employer consists of a 300 acre parcel of land with fruit trees, three houses and surrounding grounds. Seven years prior to the period in question, the orchard produced over 100,000 bushels of apples, peaches and pears annually. The production of fruit was discontinued. The claimant worked for the employer maintaining the grounds, weed cutting, grass cutting, clearing out trees and throwing out dead wood. At the time claimant became unemployed there was no active production of agricultural products on the farm and it was unknown if the orchard would ever resume production.
DECISION: The claimant was performing services in employment under the Michigan Employment Security Act and was eligible to receive benefits.
RATIONALE: The claimant maintained the grounds and trees. He performed work of cutting the grass and cleaning an estate-like plot of land. There is not, nor has there been for the past several years, any farming activity on the land. This was not “agricultural labor.”
Digest Author: Board of Review (original digest here)
Digest Updated: 7/99