Long v General Motors Corp – 8.05

Long v General Motors Corp
Digest no. 8.05

Section 28(1)(b)

Cite as: Long v General Motors Corp, unpublished opinion of the Wayne County Circuit Court, issued January 29, 1999 (Docket No. 98-82160).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Deborah Long
Employer: General Motors
Docket no.: B96-05442-140554
Date of decision: January 29, 1999

View/download the full decision

CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: A claimant who was misinformed by the employer as to the date of her layoff had good cause to excuse her late filing of a claim for benefits.

FACTS: Claimant worked half a day on Friday March 8, 1996 and was sent home and told by her foreman she was laid off effective Monday March 11, 1998. Claimant relied on this representation and information she received from her union in a letter which advised her to file her claim the week following her lay-off. She checked with several other union officials and employees and all advised her to “Go by the union letter.” The claimant did not file her claim until Monday March 18, 1996

DECISION: The claimant had good cause for late filing and is not ineligible under Section 28(1)(b) of the Michigan Employment Security Act.

RATIONALE: The claimant clearly relied on the representations of the employer and her union. This reliance is allowed under MESC Administrative Rule 210(2)(c)(ii). The claimant reasonably relied on the employer’s representation that even though she was sent home early on March 8, 1996 her lay off did not begin until Monday March 11, 1996. The court found “Although it may also have been reasonable to follow a different course of action, appellant (claimant) did not act unreasonably because she did not do so.”

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

Coley v GMC, Oldsmobile Division – 8.07

Coley v GMC, Oldsmobile Division
Digest no. 8.07

Section 28(1)(b)

Cite as: Coley v GMC, Oldsmobile Div, unpublished opinion of the Ingham Circuit Court, issued October 12, 1988 (Docket No. 88-61653-AE).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Ruby Coley
Employer: GMC, Oldsmobile Division
Docket nos.: B87-09107-106330W, B87-09106-106331W
Date of decision: October 12, 1988

View/download the full decision

CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: Where a claimant sat on her rights for seven months after relying on a family member’s interpretation of an Agency document, she cannot claim she had good cause for her failure to timely report and file.

FACTS: Claimant was fired by employer on December 13, 1982. She applied for and received benefits for some time. Claimant was denied benefits for period February 20, 1983 through October 22, 1983, due to failure to report and failure to file a continued claim without good cause. Claimant’s position was that she stopped reporting after receiving a determination denying her benefits on or about March 8, 1983. Claimant is illiterate. Her daughter read the determination and advised her she no longer needed to report.

DECISION: Claimant is ineligible for benefits under Section 28(1)(a) and (b).

RATIONALE: Under MESC Rule 210(2)(b) – in order to establish “good cause” claimant must show she acted as a reasonable person in light of all the circumstances. Claimant’s decision not to report was the result of an exercise of free will. There is no separate standard for illiterate claimants. Claimant waited seven months before investigating her rights and responsibilities with respect to the determination. That behavior does not comport with the meaning of good cause.

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

Kuprashuk v Greyhound Lines – 8.01

Kuprashuk v Greyhound Lines
Digest no. 8.01

Section 28(1)(b)

Cite as: Kuprashuk v Greyhound Lines, No. 83-334785-AE, unpublished opinion of the Wayne Circuit Court (November 2, 1984).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Helen V. Kuprashuk
Employer: Greyhound Lines
Docket no.: B82 02234 82880
Date of decision: November 2, 1984

View/download the full decision

CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: Waiting for the employer to respond to a union grievance and unfamiliarity with Commission filing procedures do not constitute good cause for late filing.

FACTS: The claimant filed her claim late because she had initiated steps to return to her job by filing a grievance which the employer failed to answer immediately and because of unfamiliarity with the Commission filing procedures.

DECISION: The claimant did not have good cause for late filing.

RATIONALE: The Court adopted the decision of the Referee, as affirmed by the Board, which held that “[T]he reasons for [claimant’s] late filing were not contained in Rule 210(2) of the Administrative Rules of the Commission … and in addition, the fact that the claimant alleges unfamiliarity with the Act, and the fact that claimant was waiting for a response to her union grievance, do not constitute justifiable reasons for failing to file a timely claim.”

Digest Author: Board of Review (original digest here)
Digest Updated: 6/91

MESC v Wisneski – 8.04

MESC v Wisneski
Digest no. 8.04

Section 28(1)(b)

Cite as: MESC v Wisneski, unpublished opinion of the Macomb Circuit Court, issued March 14, 1980 (No. 78-8670-AE).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Sylvester Wisneski
Employer: Inland Tool and Manufacturing, Inc.
Docket no.: B77-4712-54924
Date of decision: March 14, 1980

View/download the full decision

CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: Good cause in late filing situations means an inability to personally appear at an Unemployment Agency branch office. The claimant had a duty to go to the branch office to verify the employer’s advice.

FACTS: Claimant’s job terminated without notice on July 31, 1976. On leaving, the claimant received checks of one month’s salary and 2 weeks vacation pay. The employer told claimant he had to wait 6 weeks before filing for unemployment benefits because of the 2 checks. As a result, claimant did not file for benefits until September 15, 1976. The Referee held the claimant ineligible for benefits for the 6 week period prior to September 15, 1976, and the employer’s incorrect advice did not satisfy the good cause requirement for late filing.

DECISION: The claimant is ineligible for benefits for the period of July 25, 1976 to September 11, 1976 because he lacked good cause for late filing.

RATIONALE: MESC Rule 210 defines “good cause” as a “justifiable reason determined in accordance with a standard of conduct expected of an individual acting as a reasonable person in light of all the circumstances” and sets out examples. The court found in applying the Rule that “good cause” “deals with situations a claimant has no control over, reliance on the erroneous advice of an employer certainly does not fall within this category.”

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