Detroit Receiving Hospital v Arnoldi – 10.59

Detroit Receiving Hospital v Arnoldi
Digest no. 10.59

Section 29(1)(a)

Cite as: Detroit Receiving Hosp v Arnoldi, unpublished opinion of the Wayne County Circuit Court, Issued December 28, 1990 (Docket No. 90-012313-AE) .

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Eva Arnoldi
Employer: Detroit Receiving Hospital
Docket no.: B88 12307 109719W
Date of decision: December 28, 1990

View/download the full decision

CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: Because changes in the U.S. immigration laws were beyond her control, a Canadian alien could not be disqualified for voluntary leaving when she resigned because her visa was not renewed.

FACTS: Claimant is a citizen of Canada. For sixteen years she worked as a registered nurse at Detroit Receiving Hospital. On 1-10-88 she applied to have her visa renewed but was denied because a new law limited the length of time non-resident aliens could work in the U.S. to five years and the claimant had already worked twelve. Unable to work in the U.S. any longer, the claimant resigned. She then filed for unemployment benefits.

DECISION: The claimant did not voluntarily leave her employment therefore was not disqualified for U.I.

RATIONALE: Claimant’s resignation was due to changes in the immigration law beyond her control and was therefore involuntary.

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

Pizunski v Fastening House – 10.10

Pizunski v Fastening House
Digest no. 10.10

Section 29(1)(a)

Cite as: Pizunski v Fastening House, No. 73255 (unpublished opinion of the Mich App December 27, 1984).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Ed M. Pizunski
Employer: Fastening House
Docket no.: B81 08232 78656
Date of decision: December 27, 1984

View/download the full decision

COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: Where an individual quits a job that he never intended to be more than temporary, the separation is disqualifying.

FACTS: “Plaintiff, a Canadian citizen, was a member of the Muskegon Mohawk hockey team until January, 1981. In February, 1981, plaintiff’s wife’s employer temporarily transferred her to Ontario, Canada. Plaintiff accompanied his wife to Ontario and there accepted a job as a truck driver with defendant, Fastening House. In March, 1981, plaintiff’s wife completed her assignment in Ontario and returned to Muskegon. Plaintiff and his wife knew before going to Ontario that her assignment there would last only three to five weeks. The couple owned a home in the Muskegon area, and plaintiff had filed the papers necessary to obtain a “green card” which would enable him to work in the United States. The couple never intended that they would stay in Canada.”

DECISION: The claimant is disqualified for voluntary leaving.

RATIONALE: The Court relied on Laya v Cebar Construction Co, 101 Mich App 26 (1980), in reaching its decision. In Laya, the court “emphasized that the plaintiff before it had made a good faith effort to find permanent employment but had failed for reasons beyond his control.”

“Here, in contrast, plaintiff took the job in Canada knowing that his stay in Canada would be brief. Plaintiff here did not abandon as unworkable an experiment undertaken in good faith, but instead quit a job he never intended to be more than temporary. Under these circumstances, plaintiff’s decision to quit cannot be characterized as involuntary … ”

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

Laya v Cebar Construction Co – 10.05

Laya v Cebar Construction Co
Digest no. 10.05

Section 29(1)(a)

Cite as: Laya v Cebar Construction Co, 101 Mich App 26 (1980).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: David Laya
Employer: Cebar Construction
Docket no.: B76 10141 54586
Date of decision: October 23, 1980

View/download the full decision

COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: “Voluntary” as used in Section 29(1)(a) must connote a decision based upon a choice between alternatives which ordinary men would find reasonable.

FACTS: The claimant lived in Warren, Michigan with his family. In 1976 he was laid off and could not find work in his local area. Through his union he learned of work in Cincinnati, Ohio. He accepted the job, lived in Ohio during the week and drove home (272 miles) on weekends. The distance created difficulties within the family and trouble in making the drive. He quit after 25 days.

DECISION: Claimant is not disqualified for benefits pursuant to Section 29(1)(a).

RATIONALE: Where the claimant was not faced with a choice between alternatives that ordinary persons would consider reasonable, his choice was “no choice at all,” and his leaving was involuntary and non-disqualifying.

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