Heath v CPG Products-Fundimensions – 9.04

Heath v CPG Products-Fundimensions
Digest no. 9.04

Section 28a

Cite as: Heath v CPG Products-Fundimensions, unpublished opinion of the Macomb Circuit Court, issued February 25, 1985 (Docket No. 83-3950 AE).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Gloria J. Heath
Employer: CPG Products-Fundimensions
Docket no.: B82 02335 82671
Date of decision: February 25, 1985

View/download the full decision

CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: “The public is charged with constructive knowledge of the provisions of statutes of the State of Michigan.”

FACTS: The claimant was disabled for nine months prior to her application for benefits and did not know that she was required to preserve her credit weeks pursuant to MCL 421.28(a) within 45 days of the end of her disability or layoff. The information booklet given at the time of her application for benefits failed to contain information regarding preservation of credit weeks.

DECISION: The claimant has insufficient credit weeks to establish a benefit year.

RATIONALE: “The record is clear that claimant had insufficient credit weeks to obtain benefits and failed to apply for preservation of the credit weeks as required by the act. The court cannot say the MESC erred when it merely applied the plain and unambiguous language of the statute in effect at the time of claimant’s application for benefits. The excuse for her failure to act that claimant advances on appeal are raised for the first time on appeal and do not state legally sufficient excuses for not complying with the act. The MESC had no duty to inform claimant of the requirement that she preserve her credit weeks. Further, the public is charged with constructive knowledge of the provisions of statutes of the State of Michigan. The failure of the MESC to insert this information in the booklet given to claimant during the time in question does not relieve claimant from constructive notice of the provisions.”

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

Wiggers v Olsen Seawall Construction Co – 17.08

Wiggers v Olsen Seawall Construction Co
Digest no. 17.08

Section 42

Cite as: Wiggers v Olsen Seawall Construction Co, unpublished opinion of the Muskegon Circuit Court, issued April 21, 1980 (No. 79-13578 AE).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: David Wiggers
Employer: Olsen Seawall Construction Co.
Docket no.: L77 6884 1537
Date of decision: April 21, 1980

View/download the full decision

CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: Where a construction laborer is hired and paid by a subcontractor, and the tools and material are furnished by the general contractor, the laborer is not an employee of the general contractor.

FACTS: The Referee stated: “[T]he partners hired one Tom Nelson as a subcontractor to provide labor for the construction work. He hired the labor for the jobs, kept the time, and each Friday he paid the men in cash.” The claimant was one of the laborers.

DECISION: The claimant was not an employee of Olsen Seawall Construction Co.

RATIONALE: “Testimony is that the workers, after 1974, were completely hired and fired by Mr. Nelson and under his direction for the entire time. The Olsen Seawall Company was still the one the cottage owner dealt with and Olsen did indicate where to put the seawall and how long it was to be. There is testimony that on occasion the per foot costs were changed, and these were discussed with Mr. Nelson, which would be consistent with an independent contractor since if he is to obtain the labor cost as his portion of the contract then he would be consulted, and if he were paid on an hourly basis there would be no basis for consulting with him. It was testified that this was varied when the jobs were difficult or easy. This is also consistent with the independent contractor. The fact that the tools are owned by the Olsens and the fact that they paid for the lumber and additional nuts and bolts which were included in the bid and the pricing method, is not inconsistent with the concept of the independent contractor; and the fact that one of the Olsens would occasionally assist when he was present at the work-site, is not inconsistent with an independent contractor relationship.”

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