Parker v. TNT Logistics North America, Inc. – 7.36

Parker v. TNT Logistics North America, Inc.
Digest No. 7.36

Section 421.28(1)(c)

Cite as: Parker v TNT Logistics North America, Inc, unpublished opinion of the Wayne County Circuit Court, issued December 27, 2007 (Docket No. 07-717651-AE).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Karen F. Parker
Employer: TNT Logistics North America, Inc.
Date of decision: December 27, 2007

View/download the full decision

HOLDING: A claimant is not ineligible for benefits under Section 421.28(1)(c) if she leaves her job due to physical impairment if she seeks job placement help to return to the work force.

FACTS: Claimant left her factory job due to arthritis and other physical impairment. The UIA deemed her ineligible for benefits under Section 421.28(1)(c), finding her unable to perform suitable full-time work. At an ALJ hearing, Claimant admitted her condition likely precluded her from returning to her previous kinds of employment. But, she testified she had sought job placement help with the Michigan Rehabilitative Services to return to the work force.

The ALJ and Board of Review both affirmed the UIA’s determination of ineligibility.

DECISION: The Circuit Court reversed Board of Review. Claimant is not ineligible for benefits.

RATIONALE: Following McKentry v MESC, 99 Mich App 277 (1980), the court noted that a “claimant is not ineligible for benefits under the ability provision when seeking a different type of employment than his or her last job.” And, under Bolles v MESC, 361 Mich 378 (1960), “registering for and seeking work were indicia that a claimant was able and available for work, and therefore remained attached to the labor market.”

Here, Claimant had previously performed clerical work and was seeking further job training to potentially return to such employment. Therefore, Claimant maintained a sufficient connection to the workforce to preserve benefits eligibility.

Digest author: Austin L. Webbert, Michigan Law, Class of 2017
Digest updated: 10/31/2017

Heikkinen v Ore-Ida Foods, Inc – 7.10

Heikkinen v Ore-Ida Foods, Inc
Digest no. 7.10

Section 28(1)(c)

Cite as: Heikkinen v Ore-Ida Foods, Inc, unpublished opinion of the Michigan Employment Security Board of Review, issued July 31, 1980 (Docket No. B77 18316 58612).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Mabel B. Heikkinen
Employer: Ore-Ida Foods, Inc.
Docket no.: B77 18316 58612
Date of decision: July 31, 1980

View/download the full decision

BOARD OF REVIEW HOLDING: (1) Where a redetermination refers only to Section 28(1)(c) of the Act, the Referee may not rule on Section 28(1)(a). (2) Voluntary retirement is not inconsistent with subsequent attachment to the labor market.

FACTS: The Commission found a voluntary retiree ineligible under Section 28(1)(c) of the Act. The claimant testified she would give up her Social Security benefits, and would travel 30-35 miles, for full time work.

“Further, the claimant’s testimony indicates that she was not able to perform the job to which she was last assigned (T, p. 5), however, she is able to do work where she could sit down part of the time (T, p. 10).”

DECISION: The claimant is able and available for work. The finding on seeking work is vacated.

RATIONALE: “[I]t is noted that the referee states (page 2 of his decision) that ‘(I)t is generally conceded that voluntary retirement … discloses a mental attitude inconsistent with … attachment to the labor market.’ This statement appears to be unsupported by the Act or by authority. McKinney (Chrysler Corp.), 1977 AB 53130 (B76-15034).”

Digest Author: Board of Review (original digest here)
Digest Updated:
11/90

Bateman v Jackson Industrial Manufacturing Co – 7.17

Bateman v Jackson Industrial Manufacturing Co
Digest no. 7.17

Section 28(1)(c)

Cite as: Bateman v Jackson Industrial Manufacturing Co, unpublished opinion of the Kent County Circuit Court, issued May 5, 1980 (Docket No. 80 29462 AE).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Robert L. Bateman
Employer: Jackson Industrial Manufacturing Company
Docket no.: B77 10805 RO2 62489
Date of decision: May 5, 1980

View/download the full decision

CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: (1) Where a medical restriction limits an individual to seated work, which the claimant has never performed for wages, the claimant is not able and available for work. (2) Lack of counsel is not good cause for reopening. (3) A late appeal to the Board may be treated as a request for reopening.

FACTS: An equipment painter became medically restricted to seated work, which he had never performed for wages. He appeared before the referee without an attorney. His late appeal to the Board was treated as a request for reopening.

DECISION: The claimant is ineligible for benefits.

RATIONALE: “The Board of Review was within its authority in rejecting the so-called Delayed Appeal for lack of jurisdiction because of untimely filing and did properly refer it back to the Referee for a rehearing.”

“The claimant was fully advised of his rights to counsel..”

“[A]fter May 18, 1977 claimant was released and permitted by his doctor to perform ‘seated work only.’ Claimant did not meet the test of able and available for work requirements. The claimant’s testimony at the hearing indicated that all his work experience training and background has been in heavy work active jobs and not seated work.”

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

Buczek v Meijer Thrifty Acres – 7.22

Buczek v Meijer Thrifty Acres
Digest no. 7.22

Section 28 (1)(c)

Cite as: Buczek v Meijer Thrifty Acres, No. 79 928 311 AE, unpublished opinion of the Wayne Circuit Court (December 21, 1979).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Catherine Buczek
Employer: Meijer Thrifty Acres
Docket no.: B76 19230 55251
Date of decision: December 21, 1979

View/download the full decision

CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: Where a pregnant woman is medically restricted from heavy lifting, and only one of her several assignments is affected, but the employer unilaterally places the claimant on leave, the claimant is unemployed and available for work.

FACTS: The claimant did not request maternity leave, but did submit a doctor’s note restricting her from heavy lifting during her pregnancy. Only one of the claimant’s several assignments required heavy lifting. The employer put the claimant on leave unilaterally.

DECISION: The claimant was unemployed and available for work during the unilateral leave.

RATIONALE: “[W]here an employer decides to place an employee on a maternity leave of absence for a reason other than one contained in MCLA 421.48, the employee, though on an employer imposed leave of absence, is not on a Section 48 leave of absence for purposes of determining her employment status under the Act.”

“She was available for suitable work for which she was qualified except for the heavy lifting limitation. This limitation affected only a portion of one job duty, i.e., lifting groceries into the shopping cart, and neither would have detracted from her ability to perform her other job duties at Meijer nor the office work she was qualified to perform by past experience or training as these jobs did not require heavy lifting within the doctor’s restriction.”

Digest Author: Board of Review (original digest here)
Digest Updated: 11/90