Allessio v Quasarano – 7.34

Allessio v Quasarano
Digest no. 7.34

Section 28(1)(c)

Cite as: Allessio v Quasarano, unpublished opinion of the Macomb Circuit Court, issued August 1, 1997 (Docket No. 97-1083-AE).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Marie Allessio
Employer: Laura Quasarano & Nancy Lucido
Docket no.: B96-10527-142392W
Date of decision: August 1, 1997

View/download the full decision

CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: Where claimant testified before the Referee that she would work a maximum of 30 hours per week and this was consistent with her pre-hearing statements that she did not want full-time work, she did not meet the eligibility requirements of the Act.

FACTS: Claimant quit her job because her employer cut her hours. She told the Agency and the Referee she was able to work 20 – 25 hours per week and no more than 30 hours per week. The Referee reversed a disqualification under Section 29(1)(a) but held claimant ineligible because not available for full-time work. When claimant appealed to the Board of Review, she asserted she misunderstood the question regarding availability and that she was available for full time work.

DECISION: Claimant is ineligible for benefits under Section 28(1)(c).

RATIONALE: Claimant consistently made statements she was not available to work full-time. Therefore, the Board of Review was justified in concluding she was ineligible for benefits under Section 28(1)(c).

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

Schontala v Engine Power Components – 7.31

Schontala v Engine Power Components
Digest no. 7.31

Section 28(1)(c)

Cite as: Schontala v Engine Power Components, unpublished opinion of the Ottawa Circuit Court, issued October 27, 1987 (Docket No. 86-8221-AE).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Timothy Schontala
Employer: Engine Power Components
Docket no.: B85-11974-101743W
Date of decision: October 27, 1987

View/download the full decision

CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: Where claimant asserted he was available for full time work but showed by his actions that, in fact, he was not, he did not meet the availability requirement for eligibility under Section 28(1)(c).

FACTS: After working full time for the employer for over a year, claimant requested reduction to part-time work so he could return to school. Claimant was granted part-time status but shortly thereafter was laid off due to lack of work for part-time employees. Claimant was attending school and placed numerous applications for part-time work. He applied for benefits while still in school when he could not find any part-time work. Claimant asserted that he would accept full-time employment but Referee did not find his testimony credible.

DECISION: Claimant is ineligible for benefits.

RATIONALE: Determination of genuine attachment to the labor market is made by means of a subjective test which looks at the actions of the individual. In this case, claimant quit his full time employment, requested part-time status, enrolled in school nearly full-time, and subsequently applied for part-time work. See test enunciated in Dwyer v UCC, 321 Mich 178, 189 (1948).

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

General Foods Corp v Nelson – 4.12

General Foods Corp v Nelson
Digest no. 4.12

Sections 27(c), 48

Cite as: General Foods Corp v Nelson, unpublished opinion of the Calhoun County Circuit Court, issued June 18, 1980 (Docket No. B78 716 60234).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Nella L. Nelson
Employer: General Foods Corporation
Docket no.: B78 716 60234
Date of decision: June 18, 1980

View/download the full decision

CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: Where the lack of a “sufficient method of communication with the company” results in lost remuneration in excess of an individual’s benefit rate, the claimant is ineligible under Section 48 and 28(1)(c) of the Act.

FACTS: A laid-off production worker could have earned $536.00 in two weeks, as a substitute for absentees. She missed the work because she had no telephone and the employer was unsuccessful in efforts to contact her via a relative whose telephone number she had given.

DECISION: The claimant is not eligible for benefits.

RATIONALE: “The Board of Review stated: ‘The employer was not attempting to contact the claimant regarding full-time suitable work.’

“The Board of Review did not define ‘full-time’ work. Obviously 8 hours a day is full-time work that day, 40 hours a week is full-time work that week.

“The Board of Review stated: ‘The MESC Act does not require an employee to be available at a moments notice for emergency call-in work.’

“The Board of Review interpreted the requirements of the act in a different fashion than the Referee, by simply characterizing the practice of the company by the use of terms of disparagement such as ’emergency,’ ‘assistance work’ and ‘moments notice.’ Evidently neither the union nor the employees took exception to this practice.”

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

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: