McCauley (Service Systems Corporation) – 7.21

McCauley (Service Systems Corporation)
Digest no. 7.21

Section 28(1)(c)

Cite as: McCauley (Service Systems Corporation), 1978 BR 55189 (B77 3812).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Mary McCauley
Employer: Service Systems Corporation
Docket no.: B77 3812 55189
Date of decision: August 21, 1978

View/download the full decision

BOARD OF REVIEW HOLDING: A claimant who is placed on a fixed-term layoff of short duration is not required to remain in the employer’s locale.

FACTS: “The claimant was placed on a fixed-term layoff due to the Christmas holiday period on December 22, 1976 and personally instructed to return on January 3, 1977. During the layoff period, the claimant visited her ill mother in Louisiana.” She reported at a branch office in Louisiana, and returned to work on schedule.

DECISION: The claimant meets the availability requirements of Section 28(1)(c) of the Act.

RATIONALE: This is a 3-2 decision. The majority states: “The purpose of the eligibility requirements of Section 28 of the Act is to insure that the recipient of unemployment benefits is genuinely attached to the labor market. See Dwyer v Michigan Employment Security Commission, 321 Mich 178 (1948). In determining labor market attachment, the law does not require the performance of a useless act. Here, nothing in the record suggests that any work would be (or was) offered by the employer to the claimant at any other site during her fixed-term layoff. As a result, it would have served no purpose for her to have remained in the locality of her employer during this period.”

“As a result of unavailable suitable work in the claimant’s locality during the period in issue, a waiver by the Commission of seeking work was in effect.”

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

Bolles v MESC – 7.01

Bolles v MESC
Digest no. 7.01

Section 28(1)(c)

Cite as: Bolles v MESC, 361 Mich 378 (1960).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Lewis F. Bolles
Employer: Continental Motors Corporation
Docket no.: B56 362 18231
Date of decision: September 16, 1960

View/download the full decision

SUPREME COURT HOLDING: “. . . the test properly to be employed is that of genuine attachment to the labor market.”

FACTS: Claimants were laid off by the employer. Each had been trained in watch repair work and each had at one time or another engaged in this occupation. Consequently, they pooled their resources, rented a building, remodeled and redecorated, and opened it for business under the name of Muskegon Jewelers. They advertised and they did what work they could get. It wasn’t much. Each averaged about a dollar a day over the period in question.

During the period of seven weeks’ operation from October 30 through December 17, the period here involved, the claimants reported a total gain each of around $60.00 although some doubt is cast upon the accuracy of such figures as “gain” since additional expenses of almost the same amount had not been included in the computation. During this same period both claimants were actively seeking work in industry; both applied, unsuccessfully, for jobs referred to them by the Employment Security Commission, and both drew their unemployment compensation.

DECISION: Claimants were unemployed within the meaning of Section 48 of the Act.

RATIONALE: … all courts would undoubtedly agree that the Act was not intended to place a premium on idleness, to stifle initiative, or to penalize a laid-off worker’s attempt to make his time economically productive. The claimants before us, subsequent to their lay-off, continued seeking work. Each of them accepted referrals to other industrial employment. Each was ready, willing, able, and anxious to continue work in industry. They were genuinely attached to the labor market, neither casually nor as a matter of transition. There meager efforts to augment their unemployment checks did not break their genuine attachment to the labor market.

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