Haberman v The Stroh Brewery Co – 6.01

Haberman v The Stroh Brewery Co
Digest no. 6.01

Section 28(1)(a), 28(1)(c)

Cite as: Haberman v The Stroh Brewery Co, unpublished opinion of the Michigan Employment Security Board of Review, issued June 30, 1981 (Docket No. B77 3056 57623).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Charles Haberman
Employer: The Stroh Brewing Company
Docket no.: B77 3056 57623
Date of decision: June 30, 1981

View/download the full decision

BOARD OF REVIEW HOLDING: When a seeking work waiver is in effect the fact that a claimant is not actively seeking work cannot be the basis of an adverse finding under the able and available provision.

FACTS: Following a period of light duty work after an injury, the claimant’s employment came to an end because of a mandatory retirement policy. The employer contested claimant’s eligibility for benefits under the able and available provisions of the Act. During the course of the hearing it was established claimant had contacted only three possible employers during 10 months of unemployment. A waiver of the seeking work requirement was in effect during the period in question.

DECISION: The claimant was not ineligible for benefits under Section 28 except for a period he admitted he was not attached to the labor market.

RATIONALE: The entire Board cited Hinga v Brown Co, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals of Michigan, issued January 25, 1980 (Docket No. B76 2157 50644) for the principle that a claimant’s failure to seek work cannot be used as a criterion of availability when the seeking work requirement has been waived by the Commission. Three Members of the Board went on to say that the principle of Hinga applies even if the claimant does not have actual knowledge of the waiver.

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

Hinga v Brown Co – 7.06

Hinga v Brown Co
Digest no. 7.06

Section 28(1)(c)

Cite as: Hinga v Brown Co, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals of Michigan, issued January 25, 1980 (Docket No. B76 2157 50644).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Edward G. Hinga
Employer: Brown Company
Docket no.: B76 2157 50644
Date of decision: January 25, 1980

View/download the full decision

COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: Where an individual seeks supervisory and non-union work, but is willing to accept non-supervisory and union work, such preferences do not make the claimant unavailable for work.

FACTS: The claimant had previously worked as an unskilled laborer and as a shipping supervisor. He concentrated his work search on supervisory and non-union positions. The claimant contacted four employers in seven months. A waiver of seeking work was in effect.

DECISION: The claimant was available for work.

RATIONALE: “We hold, after reviewing the record as a whole, that the referee’s conclusion that plaintiff removed himself from the labor market is not supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence. The undisputed evidence showed that while plain tiff preferred supervisory work, he would take other work and while he preferred non-union work, he would accept union work. The referee erred when he held that this removed plaintiff from the labor market.”

“[T]he commission waived the seeking work requirement as to all claimants in Kalamazoo County from 5/25/75 to 7/17/76. Thus, plaintiff was entitled to rely on the representation that he need not seek work in order to be eligible for benefits.”

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