Jenkins v. UIA – 16.83

Jenkins v. UIA
Digest No. 16.83

Section 421.38

Cite as: Jenkins v UIA, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued March, 7, 2013 (Docket Nos. 309625 & 309644).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Gary Jenkins
Employer: Unemployment Insurance Agency
Date of decision: March 7, 2013

View/download the full decision

HOLDING: The courts only have subject matter jurisdiction with respect to Unemployment Insurance matters once all administrative proceedings are complete.

FACTS: On November 8, 2011, the ALJ mailed a decision holding that claimant was entitled to benefits under MCL 421.1 et seq. conditioned on Claimant’s being “otherwise eligible and qualified.” Claimant submitted the ALJ’s decision to the UIA, but the UIA refused to pay. Instead, the UIA initiated an investigation in order to determine whether MWJ Construction (Claimant’s employer) was an “employer” within the meaning of the MESA.  Claimant then filed a complaint requesting the circuit court to issue a writ of mandamus ordering the director of the agency to pay Claimant benefits. On January 27, 2012, the circuit court ordered the UIA to pay Claimant benefits. The UIA did not pay and on February 20, 2012, Claimant filed an ex parte motion for an order to show cause regarding why the UIA should be held in civil contempt for failure to comply with the court’s order. Two days before the show-cause hearing, the UIA tendered a check to the court in the full amount due to Claimant. The check was payable to the court and Claimant. At the show-cause hearing, the court found that the tendered check did not comply with the court order because it was payable to the court and Claimant instead of being payable solely to Claimant. The court found the UIA in contempt of court, ordered the UIA to pay Claimant in accordance with the January 27 order, and ordered the UIA to pay attorney fees and costs in connection with the contempt proceedings. The UIA appealed as of right from the order granting Claimant’s request for a writ of mandamus. Additionally, the UIA appeals by leave granted from an order finding the UIA in civil contempt.

DECISION: The court vacated both orders because the circuit court did not have subject matter jurisdiction in these matters.

RATIONALE: Direct review by the courts is only available when all administrative remedies available within the agency have already been exhausted by the parties. MCL 24.301. This is required because: (1) an untimely resort to the courts may result in delay and disruption of an otherwise cohesive administrative scheme; (2) judicial review is best made upon a full factual record developed before the agency; (3) resolution of the issues may require the accumulated technical competence of the agency or may have been entrusted by the Legislature to the agency’s discretion; and (4) a successful agency settlement of the dispute may render a judicial resolution unnecessary. Int’l Business Machines Corp v Dep’t of Treasury, 75 Mich App 604, 610; 255 NW2d 702 (1977).

Here, the standard procedures under MCL 421.33 were not followed with respect to the questions of whether MWJ Construction was an “employer” and whether plaintiff’s claim was valid. The ALJ did not explicitly decide whether MWJ Construction was an employer in the order, and the order was conditioned on Claimant’s being “otherwise eligible and qualified.”  As a result, the UIA was in the process of determining whether MWJ Construction was an employer, at the time the circuit court took jurisdiction. Since the administrative process was ongoing, the circuit court’s assumption of jurisdiction was in error.

Digest author: Cydney Warburton, Michigan Law, Class of 2017
Digest updated: 3/30/2016

Coppens v Hayes – 17.22

Larry Coppens, d/b/a Strawberry Tree & Landscaping v. Matthew L. Hayes
Digest No. 17.22

Section 421.41; Section 421.42

 

Cite as: Coppens v Hayes, unpublished opinion of the Oakland County Circuit Court, issued October 12, 2005, (Docket No. 05-064176-AE).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Matthew L. Hayes
Employer: Larry Coppens, d/b/a Strawberry Tree & Landscaping
Date of decision: October 12, 2005

View/download the full decision

 

HOLDING: The Board of Review’s decision is affirmed. The claimant is eligible for benefits.

FACTS: The claimant did yard work for employer until he was laid off when the employer’s machinery broke down. The UIA found the claimant was a covered employee under the Act. The ALJ agreed and the Board of Review affirmed.

DECISION: Employment relationship was reasonably found because the economic reality test and the definition of employer under MCL 421.41(1)(ii) were both satisfied.

RATIONALE: The Board’s decision was properly supported by evidence and was justified in setting the burden of proof on the claimant. Under the economic reality test’s eight factors, the Board was supported in its finding of an employment relationship because: (1) the employer didn’t incur contractual liability for terminating the claimant; (2) the claimant’s work formed an integral part of the employer’s business; (3) whether the claimant dependent of the job as a means of support was not in evidence and therefore did not factor into the analysis; (4) the employer supplied all the claimant’s work ; (5) there was no evidence the claimant held himself out to the public as ready to perform the relevant job duties; (6) there was not evidence whether the work was customarily performed by an independent contractor so this factor did not factor into the analysis; (7) the employer controlled the claimant’s work by telling him how he would be paid, when to report to work, and what to do; and (8) the purpose of the Act and deference to the agency supported the finding of the employment relationship.

The court also found an employment relationship was present under the definition of “employer” under MCL 421.41(1)(ii)  since the employer paid a total remuneration of $1000 or more per year.

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

C & L Leasing Co v State of Michigan, BW&UC – 20.08

C & L Leasing Co v State of Michigan, BW&UC
Digest no. 20.08

Section 41

Cite as: C & L Leasing Co v State of Michigan, BW&UC, unpublished opinion of the Macomb Circuit Court, issued March 11, 2003 (Docket No. 02-4341-AE).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: N/A
Employer: C & L Leasing Company
Docket no.: L2001-00056-RO1-2795
Date of decision: March 11, 2003

View/download the full decision

CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: An employer will not be considered to be an “employee leasing company” unless the employer satisfiesall of the requirements of UA Rule 190.

FACTS: Employer’s (C & L) secretary/treasurer testified that employer performed payroll services and provided employees to two other companies, Michigan Awning and Panel Laminations. Ownership of the three companies was intertwined among various family members and in-laws. Employer’s business and Michigan Awning operated out of employer’s secretary/treasurer’s residence. Employer’s secretary/treasurer’s husband and his parents had supervisory control over the employees.

DECISION: Employer is not an employee leasing company. Payroll of workers at the “client” companies is reassigned to the individual companies.

RATIONALE: To be eligible for employee leasing company status, an employer must satisfy all of the requirements of Rule 190. Employer failed to show it met the requirements of Rule 190(2). Employer did not “in fact” hire, promote, reassign, discipline and terminate the leased employees, as required by Rule 190(2)(b). Employer did not hold itself out to the general public as available to provide leasing services, as required by Rule 190(2)(f). Employer’s solicitation letter represented employer as in the business of providing payroll and administrative services.

Digest Author:  Board of Review (original digest here)
Digest Updated: 11/04