Chrysler Corp v Sellers – 7.08

Chrysler Corp v Sellers
Digest no. 7.08

Section 28(1)(c)

Cite as: Chrysler Corp v Sellers, 105 Mich App 715 (1981).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Woodrow W. Sellers
Docket no.: B76 9783 RM 58420
Employer: Chrysler Corporation
Date of decision: April 22, 1981

View/download the full decision

COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: Where a retired auto worker excludes auto plants from his or her active work search, to avoid further exposure to smoke and dust, but seeks other work which the individual has performed, the claimant is available for work and seeking work.

FACTS: “Prior to working at Chrysler, claimant had acquired work experience as a service station attendant and janitor. After retiring, claimant sought work at service stations, hospitals and small shops or factories, but he did not seek employment in an auto factory because of his previous exposure to smoke and dust at such jobs.” He testified to having sought work three or four times each week.

DECISION: “This case is remanded to the Commission for a hearing at which the claimant’s eligibility for benefits, in relation to his pension, will be determined under MCL 421.27(f); MSA 17.529(f).”

RATIONALE: The Court cited McKentry v ESC, 99 Mich App 277 (1980). “According to McKentry, claimant’s failure to actively seek a job like his last one does not constitute a material restriction of his availability under the Act. Just as the claimant in McKentry did not actively seek employment as a teacher’s aide because it aggravated her physical condition, claimant in the instant case did not actively seek work in a large auto factory because he wished to avoid further exposure to smoke. Viewing the evidence as a whole, we do not find the claimant’s failure to apply for auto plant work so significantly impaired his availability for work as to permit reversal.” “Viewing the evidence in its entirety, we find that the Board of Review’s conclusion regarding the claimant’s efforts to secure employment was based upon competent, material and substantial evidence.”

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

Buczek v Meijer Thrifty Acres – 7.22

Buczek v Meijer Thrifty Acres
Digest no. 7.22

Section 28 (1)(c)

Cite as: Buczek v Meijer Thrifty Acres, No. 79 928 311 AE, unpublished opinion of the Wayne Circuit Court (December 21, 1979).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Catherine Buczek
Employer: Meijer Thrifty Acres
Docket no.: B76 19230 55251
Date of decision: December 21, 1979

View/download the full decision

CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: Where a pregnant woman is medically restricted from heavy lifting, and only one of her several assignments is affected, but the employer unilaterally places the claimant on leave, the claimant is unemployed and available for work.

FACTS: The claimant did not request maternity leave, but did submit a doctor’s note restricting her from heavy lifting during her pregnancy. Only one of the claimant’s several assignments required heavy lifting. The employer put the claimant on leave unilaterally.

DECISION: The claimant was unemployed and available for work during the unilateral leave.

RATIONALE: “[W]here an employer decides to place an employee on a maternity leave of absence for a reason other than one contained in MCLA 421.48, the employee, though on an employer imposed leave of absence, is not on a Section 48 leave of absence for purposes of determining her employment status under the Act.”

“She was available for suitable work for which she was qualified except for the heavy lifting limitation. This limitation affected only a portion of one job duty, i.e., lifting groceries into the shopping cart, and neither would have detracted from her ability to perform her other job duties at Meijer nor the office work she was qualified to perform by past experience or training as these jobs did not require heavy lifting within the doctor’s restriction.”

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