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Section 421.210 (repealed and replaced by Section 421.32a)

Cite as: Bouier v DAFS Indianapolis-Army Military Pay, unpublished opinion of the Macomb County Circuit Court, issued August 30, 2007 (Docket No. 2007-1505-AE).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HOLDING: A claimant must file his application for benefits within the fourteen day grace period under Section 421.210 (repealed and replaced by Section 421.32a).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Claimant failed to file his application for benefits within the fourteen day grace period under Section 421.210 (repealed and replaced by Section 421.32a), Claimant was ineligible to receive benefits backdated to his initial separation. Section 421.210 (repealed and replaced by Section 421.32a) only allows backdating to the claimant’s separation date if the benefit application is timely filed within fourteen days of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Cite as: Long v General Motors Corp, unpublished opinion of the Wayne County Circuit Court, issued January 29, 1999 (Docket No. 98-82160).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

MESC v Bennett Fuel Co – 2.15

MESC v Bennett Fuel Co
Digest no. 2.15

Section 18(d)(2)

Cite as: MESC v Bennett Fuel Co, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals of Michigan, issued May 30, 1995 (Docket No. 160028).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: N/A
Employer: Bennett Fuel Company
Docket no.: L85-02360-RM1-2068
Date of decision: May 30, 1995

View/download the full decision

COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: Good cause for late protest of contribution rate established by showing that delay in filing an appeal was due to the misconduct of employer’s bookkeeper.

FACTS: In 1984 MESC raised employer’s contribution rate from 1% to 10% because of a missing quarterly report for the 2nd quarter of 1983. Notice of the increased tax rate was mailed on April 10, 1984. Employer did not protest within 30 days. Failure to observe time limit to protest of contribution rate was due to dereliction of duty on the part of employer’s bookkeeper–he had secreted a number of employer’s business documents in his car, destroyed others. When the misconduct was discovered, employer fired the bookkeeper, filed the missing quarterly report and requested redetermination of its contribution rate.

DECISION: Employer is entitled to present evidence on merits of its case for redetermination of the contribution rate.

RATIONALE: Unemployment Agency Administrative Rule 270 provides that “good cause” is defined to include situations where “an interested party has newly discovered material facts which through no fault of its own were not available at the time of the determination.” Gross misconduct of employer’s bookkeeper prevented employer from filing a timely appeal of the 10% contribution rate. This amounted to “good cause” for the delay.

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

Mitchell v BOC Car Assembly – 8.06

Mitchell v BOC Car Assembly
Digest no. 8.06

Section 28

Cite as: Mitchell v BOC Car Assembly, unpublished opinion of the Ingham County Circuit Court, issued March 29, 1990 (Docket No. 89-63386-AE).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Gerald Mitchell
Employer: BOC Car Assembly
Docket no.: B88-05151-108575W
Date of decision: March 29, 1990

View/download the full decision

CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: Claimant’s assertion that he was confused about the proper method of filing is not good cause for failure to file a timely claim.

FACTS: Claimant was temporarily laid off for two weeks. He failed to contact the MESC about filing a claim until a week after he returned to work. The claimant said he was confused as to how to file because he believed he would be contacted and/or would be able to file by mail.

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

RATIONALE: It was claimant’s responsibility to get clarification about how to file a claim. While the rules and procedures may be confusing, the Agency could not provide information or clarification if claimant did not seek it.

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

Coley v GMC, Oldsmobile Division – 8.07

Coley v GMC, Oldsmobile Division
Digest no. 8.07

Section 28(1)(b)

Cite as: Coley v GMC, Oldsmobile Div, unpublished opinion of the Ingham Circuit Court, issued October 12, 1988 (Docket No. 88-61653-AE).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Ruby Coley
Employer: GMC, Oldsmobile Division
Docket nos.: B87-09107-106330W, B87-09106-106331W
Date of decision: October 12, 1988

View/download the full decision

CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: Where a claimant sat on her rights for seven months after relying on a family member’s interpretation of an Agency document, she cannot claim she had good cause for her failure to timely report and file.

FACTS: Claimant was fired by employer on December 13, 1982. She applied for and received benefits for some time. Claimant was denied benefits for period February 20, 1983 through October 22, 1983, due to failure to report and failure to file a continued claim without good cause. Claimant’s position was that she stopped reporting after receiving a determination denying her benefits on or about March 8, 1983. Claimant is illiterate. Her daughter read the determination and advised her she no longer needed to report.

DECISION: Claimant is ineligible for benefits under Section 28(1)(a) and (b).

RATIONALE: Under MESC Rule 210(2)(b) – in order to establish “good cause” claimant must show she acted as a reasonable person in light of all the circumstances. Claimant’s decision not to report was the result of an exercise of free will. There is no separate standard for illiterate claimants. Claimant waited seven months before investigating her rights and responsibilities with respect to the determination. That behavior does not comport with the meaning of good cause.

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

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