General Foods Corp v Nelson – 4.12

General Foods Corp v Nelson
Digest no. 4.12

Sections 27(c), 48

Cite as: General Foods Corp v Nelson, unpublished opinion of the Calhoun County Circuit Court, issued June 18, 1980 (Docket No. B78 716 60234).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Nella L. Nelson
Employer: General Foods Corporation
Docket no.: B78 716 60234
Date of decision: June 18, 1980

View/download the full decision

CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: Where the lack of a “sufficient method of communication with the company” results in lost remuneration in excess of an individual’s benefit rate, the claimant is ineligible under Section 48 and 28(1)(c) of the Act.

FACTS: A laid-off production worker could have earned $536.00 in two weeks, as a substitute for absentees. She missed the work because she had no telephone and the employer was unsuccessful in efforts to contact her via a relative whose telephone number she had given.

DECISION: The claimant is not eligible for benefits.

RATIONALE: “The Board of Review stated: ‘The employer was not attempting to contact the claimant regarding full-time suitable work.’

“The Board of Review did not define ‘full-time’ work. Obviously 8 hours a day is full-time work that day, 40 hours a week is full-time work that week.

“The Board of Review stated: ‘The MESC Act does not require an employee to be available at a moments notice for emergency call-in work.’

“The Board of Review interpreted the requirements of the act in a different fashion than the Referee, by simply characterizing the practice of the company by the use of terms of disparagement such as ’emergency,’ ‘assistance work’ and ‘moments notice.’ Evidently neither the union nor the employees took exception to this practice.”

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

Woodall Industries Inc. v. Tracy – 7.38

Woodall Industries Inc. v. Tracy
Digest No. 7.38

Section 421.28

Cite as: Woodall Industries Inc. v. Tracy, unpublished opinion of the Oakland County Circuit Court, issued Sept. 17, 1941 (Docket No. 26150).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Marie Tracy
Employer: Woodall Industries, Inc.
Date of decision: September 17, 1941

View/download the full decision

HOLDING: The requirement that a claimant be “able to work and available for work” includes the ability to procure transportation to the workplace.

FACTS: Claimant lived twenty-two miles from her place of employment.  Claimant quit voluntarily because she lost access to transportation to the place of employment.  The Claimant re-acquired transportation approximately four months later.  Claimant was denied benefits for the period of time when she was without transportation.

DECISION: As a matter of fact and law, claimant was not “able to work and available to work” during the period when she had no means of transportation.  Claimant was eligible for benefits from the time when she re-acquired transportation that allowed her to travel to her place of employment.

RATIONALE: Eligibility for benefits depends on the ability to travel to the place of employment.*

Digest Author: James Mestichelli, Michigan Law, Class of 2017
Digest Updated: 3/27/2016

*The court used 421.28(c), but that language seems to have been amended. That is why the statutory section cited above is just 421.28.