Motycka v General Motors Corp – 4.32

Motycka v General Motors Corp
Digest no. 4.32

Section 48

Cite as: Motycka v General Motors Corp, 257 Mich App 578 (2003).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Marvin Motycka, et al.
Employer: General Motors Corporation
Docket no.: MUL1999-78153-RM1-155516W
Date of decision: July 17, 2003

View/download the full decision

COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: The phrase “leave of absence” as used in Section 48(3) denotes an authorized temporary release from work.

FACTS: Claimants were on a ‘pre-retirement leave’ for a two-year period as articulated in their collective bargaining agreement due to their plant closing. During the ‘pre-retirement leave,’ the claimants received 85% of their wages, retained health benefits, and accrued service credit towards retirement. At the conclusion of the two-year period, the claimants were required to retire.

DECISION: The claimants were not on a leave absence and were “unemployed.”

RATIONALE: “In American Telephone Co v ESC, 376 Mich 271, 279 (1965), our Supreme Court held that the normally accepted meaning of leave of absence was a temporary authorized release from work. GM suggests that American Telephone, supra, is distinguishable from the instant case because it construes a former section of the MES Act dealing with pregnancy leaves that has since been rescinded. However, GM fails to recognize that the Supreme Court reaffirmed the concept that a leave of absence is a temporary release from work in ESC v Vulcan Forging Co, 375 Mich 374, 379 (1965).” Motycka, at 583. The Court in Vulcan,supra, further held that a “leave of absence” is an “authorized temporary release from work for other an vacation purposes.”Motycka, at 583 quoting Vulcan, supra at 379.

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

MESC v Vulcan Forging Co – 4.22

MESC v Vulcan Forging Co
Digest no. 4.22

Section 48

Cite as: MESC v Vulcan Forging Co, 375 Mich 374 (1965).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Henry Czarnata
Employer: Vulcan Forging Company
Docket no.: B58 2338 21038
Date of decision: May 10, 1965

View/download the full decision

SUPREME COURT HOLDING: Claimants who were on unpaid vacation pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement were unemployed according to the Act for those weeks with respect to which they performed no services and received no remuneration.

FACTS: The plant where claimants worked was shut for vacation in accordance with a collective bargaining agreement but the instant claimants received no vacation pay because they had insufficient senority.

DECISION: The claimants were unemployed for purposes of the Act.

RATIONALE: The court expressly overruled IM Dach Underwear Co v ESC, 347 Mich 465 (1956). The court concluded that claimants’ unpaid vacation status was not equivalent to a “leave of absence” because a leave of absence “signifies an authorized temporary absence from work for other than vacation purposes.”

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