Mullins v. Golden Home Health Care Agency – 10.108

Mullins v. Golden Home Health Care Agency
Digest No. 10.108

Section 421.29(1)(a)

Cite as: Mullins v Golden Home Health Care Agency, unpublished opinion of the Wayne County Circuit Court, issued May 27, 2005 (Docket No. 05-503476-AE).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Shirley Mullins
Employer: Golden Home Health Care Agency
Date of decision: May 27, 2005

View/download the full decision

HOLDING: A claimant who was employed in two part-time jobs concurrently and subsequently quit one in order to accept a full-time job with the other employer is not disqualified from receiving benefits if she subsequently loses her job with the other employer for a non-disqualifying reason.   

FACTS: Claimant was working two different jobs with Golden Home Health and Walmart, concurrently. Golden Home Health told her she would be given additional clients which would require her to take on additional travel without reimbursement. Additionally, Claimant learned of a full time opportunity with Walmart that would entail higher pay, benefits, and no travel. Claimant decided to leave her employment with Golden Home Health to pursue the full time opportunity with Walmart. After leaving this position, Claimant lost her full time job with Walmart and sought to collect unemployment benefits. Claimant was denied.

The ALJ found Claimant was not disqualified for benefits. The MCAC reversed and found Claimant disqualified for benefits.

DECISION: The Circuit Court reversed the decision of the MCAC. Claimant is not disqualified for benefits.

RATIONALE: Per Dickerson v Norrell Health Care, Inc, unpublished opinion of the Kent County Circuit Court, issued September 21, 1995 (Docket No. 95-1806-AE), a claimant who had simultaneous full-time and part-time employment, who left the part-time job for disqualifying reasons and later unexpectedly lost the full-time job for non-disqualifying reasons is not disqualified from receiving benefits under Section 29(1)(a) of the Act.

Since, when Claimant quit her job with Golden Home Healthcare, it only resulted in one less job, and not total unemployment, Claimant’s decision to quit her job with Golden Home Health was not disqualifying under Section 29(1)(a) of the Act.

Digest author: Cydney Warburton, Michigan Law, Class of 2017
Digest updated: 10/31/2017

Makela v Waterford School District – 10.20

Makela v Waterford School District
Digest no. 10.20

Section 29(1)(a)

Cite as: Makela v Waterford School Dist, unpublished opinion of the Michigan Employment Security Board of Review, issued April 9, 1980 (No. B79 01484 66562).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Eve Makela
Employer: Waterford School District
Docket no.: B79 01484 66562
Date of decision: April 9, 1980

View/download the full decision

BOARD OF REVIEW HOLDING: Where an individual is on a layoff for lack of work, and resigns to accept work with another employer, the claimant is not disqualified for voluntary leaving.

FACTS: The claimant, a teacher aide, was laid off in June. She received reasonable assurance or reemployment in the fall. While on layoff, the claimant accepted office work with another employer, and resigned the teacher aide position.

DECISION: The claimant is not disqualified for voluntary leaving.

RATIONALE: “Prior Board decisions have consistently held that in order for the disqualification provisions of Section 29(1)(a) to apply the claimant must be actually in employment or that the employment relationship continues as in the case of a leave of absence or labor dispute. Here, the claimant was not in employment when she quit and, therefore, is not subject to the disqualification provisions of the Act. See Wright (Packard Motor Car Co), Appeal Docket No. B9-1771-9898 (1949).”

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

Miller v Hoffmaster Farms – 10.28

Miller v Hoffmaster Farms
Digest no. 10.28

Section 29(1)(a)

Cite as: Miller v Hoffmaster Farms, unpublished opinion of the Allegan County Circuit Court, issued January 11, 1980 (Docket No. 79-1282 AV).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: L. Scott Miller
Employer: Hoffmaster Farms
Docket no.: EB76 17267 55335
Date of decision: January 11, 1980

View/download the full decision

CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: (1) An individual who leaves a non-liable employing unit to accept work with a liable employer is disqualified for voluntary leaving. (2) A disqualification is not made moot by a claimant’s subsequent receipt of the maximum benefit entitlement.

FACTS: The claimant tended a dairy herd, on a part-time basis, for a non-liable agricultural employing unit. He was disqualified for leaving to accept full-time work with a liable employer, but subsequently received benefits for the maximum number of weeks.

DECISION: The claimant is disqualified for voluntary leaving.

RATIONALE: “While another party, one actually deprived of benefits, may have better standing to present the issue involved in this case, the claimant should be entitled to a circuit court review of the record … “.

“[A]n employing unit can be composed of agricultural labor, but such a unit, at least during the period that appellant worked for Hoffmaster Farms, cannot be subject to the terms of MCLA 421.41; MSA 17.543 defining ’employer.'”

“It should be pointed out that MCLA 421.29 (5); MSA 17.531 (5) waives the disqualification period when an individual leaves an employer, even though working part-time, to take a full-time job with another employer. Presumably, because not all employing units are employers, this waiver is not extended to those individuals who leave an employing unit to take a job with an employer.”

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

Bradford v Shreve Steel Erection – 11.01

Bradford v Shreve Steel Erection
Digest no. 11.01

Section 29(5)

Cite as: Bradford v Shreve Steel Erection, unpublished opinion of the Michigan Employment Security Board of Review, issued March 23, 1978 (Docket No. B76 10199 RO 53944).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Bruce Bradford
Employer: Shreve Steel Erection
Docket no.: B76 10199 RO 53944
Date of decision: March 23, 1978

View/download the full decision

BOARD OF REVIEW HOLDING: “The mere fact that the claimant worked only two days does not make inapplicable Section 29(5) of the Act.”

FACTS: The claimant voluntarily resigned to accept work with another employer. His successive employment lasted only two days, because he was laid off by his new employer.

DECISION: The claimant is not disqualified for voluntarily leaving.

RATIONALE: “When the claimant left Shreve Steel Erection, Inc., he did so for the purpose of accepting what he thought would be permanent full-time work with Michigan Boiler but for reasons unknown to the claimant, he was terminated from this employment after working only two days. The mere fact that the claimant worked ony two days does not make inapplicable Section 29(5) of the Act.

“The Board finds that the claimant left his employment with Shreve Steel Erection, Inc. to accept permanent full-time work with Michigan Boiler and the disqualification provision under Subsection 29(1)(a) of the Act is not applicable by virture of the provisions of Section 29(5) of the Act.”

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