Martell v. Department of Labor and Economic Growth – 17.29

Martell v. Department of Labor and Economic Growth
Digest No. 17.29

Section 421.43

Cite as: In re the Claim of Marie E Martell, unpublished opinion of the Employment Security Board of Review issued August 4, 2006 (Docket No. B 2004-13571-RMI-l-76079W).

Court: Employment Security Board of Review (now the MCAC)
Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Marie Martell & Joy Witte (These claimants’ cases were joined. The court notes, “[w]hile the two cases were not consolidated, they do arise from similar facts.”)
Employer: State of Michigan, Department of Labor & Economic Growth
Date of decision: August 4, 2006

View/download the full decision

HOLDING: The Board of Review determined that two commissioners on the Workers Compensation Appellate Commission were “in employment” for purposes of section 43(o) of the the Act. Accordingly, Claimants were not precluded from eligibility for benefits as section 43(o)(iii)(E) requires of those holding “designated” “major nontenured policymaking or advisory” positions.

FACTS: The former Governor Engler appointed claimants to the Worker’s Compensation Appellate Commission (WCAC) as commission member, effective September 30, 2002. Claimants’ responsibilities including reviewing appeals and related motions on appeal from decisions of the Worker’s Compensation Board of Magistrates and writing corresponding decisions and orders. Claimants became unemployed pursuant to Executive Order 2003-14 and 2003-18, which decreased the number of WCAC commission members from seven to four.

Claimants filed an application for unemployment insurance, but was found not eligible pursuant to section 43(o)(iii)(E) of the MESA, which precludes those holding “designated” “major nontenured policymaking or advisory” positions from UI eligibility.

DECISION: Claimants were not in “designated” “major nontenured policymaking or advisory” positions. Because claimants was not in one of these positions, the ALJ’s decision finding her not eligible for benefits should be reversed.

RATIONALE: The Board of Review’s decision rested on a relatively complex statutory interpretation exercise. It began by recognizing the five prongs section 43(o)(iii)(E) requires for an individual to be found not under the definition of the section’s definition of employment. For the exclusion to apply, the Act requires that the position be: (1) under or pursuant to the laws of the state, (2) designated as a, (3) major, (4) nontenured, and (5) policy making or advisory position.

The Board takes the first two points together to determine if a claimant’s position was “designated.” Looking to a Pennsylvania court’s resolution of a similar issue, the Board reviews the statute that established the WCAC and notes that nowhere in the statute or the legislative history is there indication that WCAC Commission members were to be considered “designated under or pursuant to the [law].” After determining the claimant’s position has not been so designated, the Board recognizes this finding is fatal to the Agency’s position.

Notwithstanding this dispositive finding, the Board reviews the remaining considerations. The Board determines that the term “major” is intended to modify “nontenured policymaking or advisory position.” After an exhaustive delve into the meaning of “nontenured”, the Board determines the term is ambiguous and thus should be construed in favor of the Claimant. Next, the Board determines that because the WCAC Commission members do not have broad policymaking power, their position cannot be considered major, and thus, the Agency loses on this point, too. Because the claimants were not so designated by state law, they were “employees” and eligible for benefits.

Digest author: Travis Miller, Michigan Law, Class of 2018
Digest updated: December 23, 2017

 

Bureau of Worker’s and Unemployment Compensation v Detroit Medical Center – 17.21

Bureau of Worker’s and Unemployment Compensation v Detroit Medical Center
Digest no. 17.21

Section 421.43(o)(v) & (q)(ii)

Cite as: Bureau of Unemployment Compensation v Detroit Medical Ctr, 267 Mich App 500 (2005).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Marquetta Jones
Employer: Detroit Medical Center
Docket No.: 252777
Date of decision: July 26, 2005

View/download the full decision

 

HOLDING: Claimant’s medical residency was not excluded from the Act’s coverage as (1) a work training program because the residency had no purpose to alleviate unemployment, poverty, or welfare dependence; nor (2) student employment because the employer was an non-profit organization.

FACTS: Claimant was a former medical resident (still registered as a full-time student during residency). After the UIA determined that medical residency was employment covered by the Act, an ALJ reversed. The board and circuit court affirmed. On appeal, the parties stipulated that the claimant was subject to the employer’s control and received remuneration.

DECISION: It was clear error for the ALJ, Board and circuit court to exclude the claimant’s employment as a medical resident from coverage under Section 421.43(o)(v) & (q)(ii).

Claimant’s medical residency was not excluded from the Act’s coverage as (1) a work training program because the residency had no purpose to alleviate unemployment, poverty, or welfare dependence; nor (2) student employment because the employer was an non-profit organization.

RATIONALE: Relying on Dana v American Youth Foundation, 257 Mich App 208; 668 NW2d 174 (2003), the court explained that interpretation of the work-relief and work-training exclusions in the Federal Unemployment Tax Act, 26 U.S.C. § 3301 et seq. are highly persuasive authority in resolving the similar exclusion in MCL § 421.43(o)(v). Dana followed U.S. Department of Labor guidance to interpret the exclusion, and held that in order to qualify as an exclusion from employment, a work-relief or work-training program must satisfy all mandatory requirements of the Department of Labor guidance (including that the products or services must be secondary to providing financial assistance, training, or work-experience to individuals to relieve them or unemployment or poverty). The court decided that the medical residency’s product or service was secondary to the purpose of training future doctors, but that there was no purpose of relieving the residents of unemployment, or poverty, or welfare dependence. Therefore, the medical residency could not be an excluded work-training program and it was clear error to hold otherwise.

It was also clear error to exclude Claimant’s medical residency as student employment under MCL § 421.43(q)(ii) because it was undisputed that the employer was a non-profit organization (which are excepted from the student employment exclusion).

Digest author: Austin L. Webbert, Michigan Law, Class of 2017
Digest updated: October 24, 2017