Meader v Spencer, Smith & Forsythe – 7.14

Meader v Spencer, Smith & Forsythe
Digest no. 7.14

Section 28(1)(c)

Cite as: Meader v Spence, Smith & Forsythe, unpublished opinion of the Saginaw Circuit Court, issued November 7, 1978 (Docket No. 74-02745-AE-3).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Carol A. Meader
Employer: Spence, Smith and Forsythe
Docket no.: B73 9562 45322
Date of decision: November 7, 1978

View/download the full decision

CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: Where a claimant’s occupations are teacher and secretary, the claimant is not required to be available for work at night or on Saturday and Sunday.

FACTS: The claimant held a teaching certificate and had worked as a secretary. She actively sought full-time teaching and secretarial work, but limited her availability to daytime hours for personal reasons. She also ruled out Saturdays and Sundays, “Because jobs in my class are not encountered those days, either teaching or secretarial work, unless it happened to be, you know, some special circumstance.”

DECISION: The claimant was available for full-time work.

RATIONALE: “Clearly, the courts today appear to be departing from the traditional belief that ‘availability’ must be of 24 hour duration. This trend is evidenced by the recent case of UAW v Governor, 50 Mich App 116 (1973), on remand from the Supreme Court of Michigan, 388 Mich 578. In that case, the Court of Appeals was called upon to define the ‘fulltime’ requirement of members of the Appeal Board of the Michigan Employment Security Commission.”

“The decision in UAW v Governor “. . . requires appeal board members to perform their duties during ordinary office hours ‘which constitutes an 8 hour day, Monday through Friday, falling within the period of 7:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m.'” The Court concluded that the claimant cannot be held to a standard of availability for full-time work which is more stringent than the one covering Appeal Board members.

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

Ford Motor Co v UCC – 7.03

Ford Motor Co v UCC
Digest no. 7.03

Section 28(1)(c)

Cite as: Ford Motor Co v UCC, 316 Mich 468 (1947).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Drusilla Koski
Employer: Ford Motor Company
Docket no.: B4 3872 1751
Date of decision: January 6, 1947

View/download the full decision

SUPREME COURT HOLDING: “There is nothing in the statute to justify the conclusion that the legislature intended a claimant might limit his employment to certain hours of the day where the work he is qualified to perform is not likewise limited.”

FACTS: A bench hand on the afternoon shift was laid off for lack of work. She limited her availability to her customary shift, because she wished to be home when her two children prepared for school each day.

DECISION: The claimant is ineligible for benefits.

RATIONALE: “It will be noted that [S.] 28(1)(c) of the statute, quoted above in part, contemplates availability for work of the character that a claimant is qualified to perform and further requires availability for full-time work. The central thought in the subdivision has reference to the character of the labor for which a claimant is available. There is nothing in the statute to justify the conclusion that the legislature intended a claimant might limit his employment to certain hours of the day where the work he is qualified to perform is not likewise limited. It may be assumed that, in a so-called ‘around-the-clock’ operation, the work on different shifts does not vary in character. When claimant stated she would not accept work except on the afternoon shift, she clearly made herself unavailable for work of the character that she was qualified to perform.”

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