Elliott’s Amusements, LLC v. Garrison – 17.23

Elliott’s Amusements, LLC v. Garrison
Digest No. 17.23

Section 421.44

Cite as: Elliott’s Amusements, LLC v Garrison, unpublished opinion of the Ingham County Circuit Court, issued October 1, 2007 (Docket No. 07-251-AE).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Ronald L. Garrison
Employer: Elliott’s Amusements, LLC
Date of decision: October 1, 2007

View/download the full decision

HOLDING: Certain per diem payments made by the employer to the claimant were remuneration when not for the “convenience of the employer” and the claimant had the ability to choose how to spend the money.

FACTS: The ALJ decided that per diem amounts the employer paid to the claimant were remuneration under Section 44(1). The Board of Review affirmed and incorporated the ALJ’s decision. As the Board explained, the claimant worked six months per year for the employer, while also living in the employer’s trailer and paying rent and food money. The claimant received a per diem payment from the employer, plus reimbursements for some expenses. Citing Seligman v MESC, 164 Mich App 507 (1988) as controlling, the Board endorsed the ALJ’s view that the per diem payments amounted to wages because the employer did not require the claimant to live at the work site, the lodging was not free, and the claimant’s use of the per diem payments were not controlled by the employer.  The claimant choice to use the employer-provided lodging was based on his own convenience, distinguishing his situation from the mandatory on-site lodging provided for the “convenience of the employer” in Seligman.

DECISION: The court upheld the determination that certain per diem payments made by the employer to the claimant were remuneration.

RATIONALE: Per diem payments for on-site lodging and food are considered remuneration if the employer did not control the claimant’s use of the per diem monies and the claimant could have spent the money in other ways.

Digest author: Austin L. Webbert, Michigan Law, Class of 2017
Digest updated: 10/25/2017

 

MESC v Peterson – 4.16

MESC v Peterson
Digest no. 4.16

Section 48

Cite as: MESC v Peterson, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals of Michigan, issued September 29, 1982 (Docket No. B78 53074 65751).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Doris C. Peterson
Employer: Eastern Michigan University
Docket no.: B78 53074 65751
Date of decision: September 29, 1982

View/download the full decision

COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: Monies given to the claimant by the employer for services which had been voluntarily rendered were not earnings and therefore could not be considered remuneration for purposes of Section 48.

FACTS: The claimant voluntarily agreed to work without pay on a two month research project. Approximately three months after the claimant had performed her voluntary services the employer gave the claimant $2000.00 for her efforts.

DECISION: The claimant was eligible for benefits during the period which she rendered voluntary services since no remuneration had been earned.

RATIONALE: When the claimant agreed to perform the services it was understood they were being provided on a voluntary basis. As a consequence the claimant had no enforceable claim for remuneration and the employer had no obligation to pay. Absent some enforceable claim or obligation monies received for services rendered cannot be considered remuneration for purposes of the MES Act.

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