Dean v. Thrifty Services, Inc., UIA – 11.06

Dean v. Thrifty Services, Inc., UIA
Digest No. 11.06

Section 421.29(5)

Cite as: Dean v Thrifty Services, Inc, unpublished opinion of the Montmorency County Circuit Court, issued April 15, 2006 (Docket No. 05-1219 AE).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant:
John Dean
Employer: Thrifty Services, Inc.
Docket no.: 05-1219 AE
Date of decision: April 15, 2006

View/Download the full decision

HOLDING: A claimant’s employee status does not cease when the client failed to renew the contract.

FACTS: Claimant initially worker for Automobile First and provided personnel and employee leasing services to Thrifty Services. Claimant worked for Thrifty Services from May 30, 2001 until June 20, 2004 as a mechanic/manager. On June 30, 2004 Automobile First sold facility to SAD Inc who did not continue the contract with Thrifty Services. Claimant became an employee of SAD Inc.

DECISION: Claimant is not disqualified under Section 29(1)(a).

RATIONALE: The Court affirmed claimant not disqualified under Section 29(1)(a), even though the employee leasing company transferred him to the client company’s payroll, shortly before the client ceased operations. After reviewing the record, the Board finds that there has not been an abuse of discretion. Therefore, the Referee’s order, a copy of which is attached and incorporated by this reference, should be affirmed.

Digest Author: Katrien Wilmots, Michigan Law, Class of 2017
Digest Updated: 3/1/2016

Rosewarne, d/b/a Crossroads Imports v Dyktor – 10.42

Rosewarne, d/b/a Crossroads Imports v Dyktor
Digest no. 10.42

Section 29(1)(a)

Cite as: Rosewarne v Dyktor, unpublished opinion of the Ingham County Circuit Court, issued February 26, 1985 (Docket No. 82-28690 AE).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Denise R. Dyktor
Employer: Mary Anne Rosewarne, d/b/a Crossroads Imports
Docket no.: B81 01118 76258
Date of decision: February 26, 1985

View/download the full decision

CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: (1) An employee who gives notice of an intent to quit should not be penalized with a loss of wages by termination prior to the intended date of separation. (2) Since Claimant was the party seeking review and the one unemployed, it was not an abuse of discretion to deny the employer’s request for an adjournment.

FACTS: The employer discharged Claimant in anticipation of Claimant’s projected departure.

DECISION: Claimant is not disqualified for voluntary leaving.

RATIONALE: The court, agreeing with Miller v Visiting Nurses Association, unpublished opinion of the Michigan Employment Security Board of Review, issued July 27, 1978 (Docket No. 1978 BR 54326), stated that notice of an employee’s intention to quit is a benefit to the employer. Thus, it makes no sense to discourage this practice by allowing the employer the prerogative of deciding the employee’s last date. “This court is merely acknowledging notions of fundamental fairness … The giving of notice … is appropriate behavior by an employee. Such behavior should not be penalized with a loss of expected wages.”

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