Haberman v The Stroh Brewery Co – 6.01

Haberman v The Stroh Brewery Co
Digest no. 6.01

Section 28(1)(a), 28(1)(c)

Cite as: Haberman v The Stroh Brewery Co, unpublished opinion of the Michigan Employment Security Board of Review, issued June 30, 1981 (Docket No. B77 3056 57623).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Charles Haberman
Employer: The Stroh Brewing Company
Docket no.: B77 3056 57623
Date of decision: June 30, 1981

View/download the full decision

BOARD OF REVIEW HOLDING: When a seeking work waiver is in effect the fact that a claimant is not actively seeking work cannot be the basis of an adverse finding under the able and available provision.

FACTS: Following a period of light duty work after an injury, the claimant’s employment came to an end because of a mandatory retirement policy. The employer contested claimant’s eligibility for benefits under the able and available provisions of the Act. During the course of the hearing it was established claimant had contacted only three possible employers during 10 months of unemployment. A waiver of the seeking work requirement was in effect during the period in question.

DECISION: The claimant was not ineligible for benefits under Section 28 except for a period he admitted he was not attached to the labor market.

RATIONALE: The entire Board cited Hinga v Brown Co, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals of Michigan, issued January 25, 1980 (Docket No. B76 2157 50644) for the principle that a claimant’s failure to seek work cannot be used as a criterion of availability when the seeking work requirement has been waived by the Commission. Three Members of the Board went on to say that the principle of Hinga applies even if the claimant does not have actual knowledge of the waiver.

Digest Author: Board of Review (original digest here)
Digest Updated:
12/91

Wambaugh v Harvey Home – 8.03

Wambaugh v Harvey Home
Digest no. 8.03

Sections 28(1)(a), 32

Cite as: Wambaugh v Harvey Home, unpublished opinion of the Michigan Employment Security Board of Review, issued September 29, 1980 (Docket No. B79 05675 68029).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Margie M. Wambaugh
Employer: Harvey Home
Docket no.: B79 05675 68029
Date of decision: September 29, 1980

View/download the full decision

BOARD OF REVIEW HOLDING: The period of ineligibility for failing, without good cause, to report to a Commission office as scheduled on a continued claim, is limited to weeks preceding the week of the appointment.

FACTS: Claimant had an on-going (continued) unemployment benefits claim. She reported to an MESC branch office to certify as to her eligibility on January 9, 1979. She was given a next appointment date of January 23, 1979 but for various reasons did not report on that date or until February 9, 1979. The MESC held her ineligible for the four week period from January 7, 1979 – February 3, 1979, including the two preceding weeks ending January 13 and 20 for which she could have certified on January 23 and the subsequent two weeks because by failing to report she did not “establish the effective date of the next succeeding benefit period.”

DECISION: Claimant is not ineligible pursuant to the reporting requirements of Sections 28 and 32 because the Board found claimant had good cause for failing to report. (Editor’s Note: Although in light of that finding the Board’s holding may appear to be dicta, various panels of the Board have since repeatedly followed the principle of Wambaugh.)

RATIONALE: MESC Rule 210(9) “is arbitrary and capricious….

The second function, that of establishment of the effective date of the next succeeding benefit period as a condition to the entitlement for benefits for such succeeding period, is meaningless. For example, the elements of eligibility for benefits can always (and only) be established at the conclusion of the week or weeks in question. Therefore, we hold that an individual who misses a bi-weekly reporting datewithout good cause shall forfeit only his entitlement to the prior two weeks of benefits, that is “the completed week or weeks of unemployment” referred to in Rule 210(9).”

Digest Author: Board of Review (original digest here)
Digest Updated: 12/91

Lothian v Rifkin, Shultz & Kingsley, PC – 6.02

Lothian v Rifkin, Shultz & Kingsley, PC
Digest no. 6.02

Section 28(1)(a)

Cite as: Lothian v Rifkin, Shultz & Kingsley, PC, No. 47129 (Mich App August 18, 1980).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Janice Lothian
Employer: Rifkin, Shultz & Kingsley, P.C.
Docket no.: B76 10412 52303
Date of decision: August 18, 1980

View/download the full decision

COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: The claimant failed to establish that she was conducting an exhaustive employment search and was therefore ineligible for unemployment benefits.

FACTS: Claimant had been employed as a legal secretary. During the 12 week period of unemployment, she sought work only a few times, mostly by telephone. She physically visited the offices of prospective employers on only two occasions. Claimant did not seek the assistance of employment agencies and did not use the Detroit Legal News, the publication through which she had obtained her last employment.

DECISION: The claimant was ineligible for unemployment benefits.

RATIONALE: Claimant did not establish that she was genuinely seeking work of a character which she was qualified to perform by past experience and training and for which she had previously received wages.

Digest Author: Board of Review (original digest here)
Digest Updated:
12/91