Bouier v. DAFS Indianapolis-Army Military Pay – 16.74

Bouier v. DAFS Indianapolis-Army Military Pay
Digest No. 16.74

Section 421.210 (repealed and replaced by Section 421.32a)

Cite as: Bouier v DAFS Indianapolis-Army Military Pay, unpublished opinion of the Macomb County Circuit Court, issued August 30, 2007 (Docket No. 2007-1505-AE).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Everett Bouier, Jr.
Employer: DFAS Indianapolis-Army Military Pay
Date of decision: August 30, 2007

View/download the full decision

HOLDING: A claimant must file his application for benefits within the fourteen day grace period under Section 421.210 (repealed and replaced by Section 421.32a).

FACTS: Claimant separated from the military on April 2, 2006. Upon his separation, Claimant was told by his former employer to go to his local employment office. He was also advised that he would not be eligible to receive unemployment benefits. Claimant believed that the purpose for visiting the unemployment office was to find a new job, not to file for unemployment benefits. Because he was unaware of his eligibility, Claimant did not file for benefits until June 18, 2006. On filing, Claimant requested payments backdated to his original separation date of April 2, 2006.

DECISION: Claimant is not eligible for backdating of benefits to his original separation date. Appeal is dismissed.

RATIONALE: Because Claimant failed to file his application for benefits within the fourteen day grace period under Section 421.210 (repealed and replaced by Section 421.32a), Claimant was ineligible to receive benefits backdated to his initial separation. Section 421.210 (repealed and replaced by Section 421.32a) only allows backdating to the claimant’s separation date if the benefit application is timely filed within fourteen days of the Friday after the end of the week in which the claimant became unemployed. The plain language of the Agency’s rules supports this determination.

Digest author: Winne Chen, Michigan Law, Class of 2017
Digest updated: October 11, 2017

 

 

 

Long v General Motors Corp – 8.05

Long v General Motors Corp
Digest no. 8.05

Section 28(1)(b)

Cite as: Long v General Motors Corp, unpublished opinion of the Wayne County Circuit Court, issued January 29, 1999 (Docket No. 98-82160).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Deborah Long
Employer: General Motors
Docket no.: B96-05442-140554
Date of decision: January 29, 1999

View/download the full decision

CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: A claimant who was misinformed by the employer as to the date of her layoff had good cause to excuse her late filing of a claim for benefits.

FACTS: Claimant worked half a day on Friday March 8, 1996 and was sent home and told by her foreman she was laid off effective Monday March 11, 1998. Claimant relied on this representation and information she received from her union in a letter which advised her to file her claim the week following her lay-off. She checked with several other union officials and employees and all advised her to “Go by the union letter.” The claimant did not file her claim until Monday March 18, 1996

DECISION: The claimant had good cause for late filing and is not ineligible under Section 28(1)(b) of the Michigan Employment Security Act.

RATIONALE: The claimant clearly relied on the representations of the employer and her union. This reliance is allowed under MESC Administrative Rule 210(2)(c)(ii). The claimant reasonably relied on the employer’s representation that even though she was sent home early on March 8, 1996 her lay off did not begin until Monday March 11, 1996. The court found “Although it may also have been reasonable to follow a different course of action, appellant (claimant) did not act unreasonably because she did not do so.”

Digest Author: Board of Review (original digest here)
Digest Updated: 7/99

Kuprashuk v Greyhound Lines – 8.01

Kuprashuk v Greyhound Lines
Digest no. 8.01

Section 28(1)(b)

Cite as: Kuprashuk v Greyhound Lines, No. 83-334785-AE, unpublished opinion of the Wayne Circuit Court (November 2, 1984).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Helen V. Kuprashuk
Employer: Greyhound Lines
Docket no.: B82 02234 82880
Date of decision: November 2, 1984

View/download the full decision

CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: Waiting for the employer to respond to a union grievance and unfamiliarity with Commission filing procedures do not constitute good cause for late filing.

FACTS: The claimant filed her claim late because she had initiated steps to return to her job by filing a grievance which the employer failed to answer immediately and because of unfamiliarity with the Commission filing procedures.

DECISION: The claimant did not have good cause for late filing.

RATIONALE: The Court adopted the decision of the Referee, as affirmed by the Board, which held that “[T]he reasons for [claimant’s] late filing were not contained in Rule 210(2) of the Administrative Rules of the Commission … and in addition, the fact that the claimant alleges unfamiliarity with the Act, and the fact that claimant was waiting for a response to her union grievance, do not constitute justifiable reasons for failing to file a timely claim.”

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

Alasri v MESC – 8.02

Alasri v MESC
Digest no. 8.02

Section 32

Cite as: Alasri v MESC, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals of Michigan, issued March 13, 1984 (Docket No. TRA81 10471 79796).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Ali M. Alasri
Employer: Chrysler Corporation
Docket no.:
Date of decision: March 13, 1984

View/download the full decision

COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: The MESC is not required to provide an illiterate claimant with verbal instructions about the filing process or an interpreter where the Commission was not aware of the illiteracy problem.

FACTS: A claimant of Arabic background who did not read English well was late in filing for TRA training benefits. Notification of the training benefits program was mailed to the claimant.

DECISION: Denial of training benefits was affirmed.

RATIONALE: “Plaintiff has produced no evidence that the MESC was aware of his illiteracy at the time the notice was sent. We therefore concluded that the responsibility for translating the notice rested with plaintiff, who should have acted in some way to inform himself of its contents.”

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

MESC v Wisneski – 8.04

MESC v Wisneski
Digest no. 8.04

Section 28(1)(b)

Cite as: MESC v Wisneski, unpublished opinion of the Macomb Circuit Court, issued March 14, 1980 (No. 78-8670-AE).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Sylvester Wisneski
Employer: Inland Tool and Manufacturing, Inc.
Docket no.: B77-4712-54924
Date of decision: March 14, 1980

View/download the full decision

CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: Good cause in late filing situations means an inability to personally appear at an Unemployment Agency branch office. The claimant had a duty to go to the branch office to verify the employer’s advice.

FACTS: Claimant’s job terminated without notice on July 31, 1976. On leaving, the claimant received checks of one month’s salary and 2 weeks vacation pay. The employer told claimant he had to wait 6 weeks before filing for unemployment benefits because of the 2 checks. As a result, claimant did not file for benefits until September 15, 1976. The Referee held the claimant ineligible for benefits for the 6 week period prior to September 15, 1976, and the employer’s incorrect advice did not satisfy the good cause requirement for late filing.

DECISION: The claimant is ineligible for benefits for the period of July 25, 1976 to September 11, 1976 because he lacked good cause for late filing.

RATIONALE: MESC Rule 210 defines “good cause” as a “justifiable reason determined in accordance with a standard of conduct expected of an individual acting as a reasonable person in light of all the circumstances” and sets out examples. The court found in applying the Rule that “good cause” “deals with situations a claimant has no control over, reliance on the erroneous advice of an employer certainly does not fall within this category.”

Digest Author: Board of Review (original digest here)
Digest Updated: 7/99