Seligman & Associates, Inc v MESC – 20.03

Seligman & Associates, Inc v MESC
Digest no. 20.03

Section 44(2)

Cite as: Seligman & Assoc, Inc v MESC, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals of Michigan, issued May 6, 1987 (Docket No. 85110).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: N/A
Employer: Seligman & Associates, Inc.
Docket no.: N/A
Date of decision: May 6, 1987

View/download the full decision

COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: The value of lodging provided to resident caretakers for the convenience of the employer is not considered wages under the Act.

FACTS: The employer operates numerous apartment complexes. The employer provides rent-free apartments to the apartment caretakers and requires them to live on the premises to be available to handle tenant complaints that may arise.

DECISION: The employer is entitled to a refund of contributions paid based on inclusion of the value of the lodging in calculation of wages.

RATIONALE: The reasonable cash value of lodging is to be considered wages only if it is extended as full or partial remuneration for the services rendered. There is no showing that the lodging was intended as partial compensation for the employees.

“This interpretation of the definition of wages is consistent with the United States Supreme Court’s interpretation of the definition of wages under the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) in Rowan Co, Inc v United States, 452 US 247 (1981). In Rowan the Supreme Court held that for the purposes of FUTA wages do not include the value of meals and lodging provided for the convenience of the employer.”

Digest Author:  Board of Review (original digest here)
Digest Updated: 12/91

Yoder v ABC Heating & Supply – 10.26

Yoder v ABC Heating & Supply
Digest no. 10.26

Section 29(1)(a)

Cite as: Yoder v ABC Heating and Supply, unpublished opinion of the Michigan Employment Security Board of Review, issued January 2, 1980 (Docket No. B78 07654 62185).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: David Yoder
Employer: ABC Heating and Supply
Docket no.: B78 07654 62185
Date of decision: January 2, 1980

View/download the full decision

BOARD OF REVIEW HOLDING: Where a wage and hour statute requires payment of time and a half for hours in excess of 40 hours per week, failure to pay that rate is good cause for voluntary leaving.

FACTS: “One of the reasons given by claimant for quitting his job was that he was not receiving time and one-half pay for his overtime work.

“Mr. Smith, representative of the employer, reviewed his records at the hearing and admitted that he owed the claimant additional money. He stated that the claimant did work over- time hours and did not receive time and one-half and that he would see to it that the claimant received his money.”

DECISION: The claimant is not disqualified for voluntary leaving.

RATIONALE: The Board adopted the decision of the Referee, who held: “Michigan law generally provides that employers who have four or more employees over the age of 18 are required to pay time and one-half for hours in excess of 40 hours. Since in the instant case, the employer did not pay the claimant according to the State law, the claimant did have a good cause attributable to the employer for quitting his job and he is not disqualified for benefits under Section 29(1)(a) of the Act.”

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