04. Total or Partial Unemployment

Tenneco Inc v MESC – 4.14

Tenneco Inc v MESC
Digest no. 4.14

Section 48

Cite as: Tenneco Inc v MESC, unpublished opinion of the Jackson Circuit Court, issued December 30, 1983 (Docket No. 82-29572 AE).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: John J. Brieger
Employer: Tenneco, Inc. – Walker Mfg.
Docket no.: B80 23129 RO1 76344
Date of decision: December 30, 1983

View/download the full decision

CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: Where an employer allocates vacation pay to periods of lay-off, but fails to comply with the notice requirements of Commission Administrative Rule 302, the payment is not remuneration under Section 48.

FACTS: The claimant made a request for vacation pay. On June 6, 1980, he received a check representing his vacation pay with his vacation beginning the following week. The collective bargaining agreement provided that the company could schedule a shutdown of plant operations for a period in July or August, on the condition that 90 days prior notice be given. Written notice of a shutdown scheduled for August 28, was posted at plant locations on May 9, and July 2, 1980.

DECISION: The vacation payment is not remuneration under Section 48.

RATIONALE: “[T]he employment contract provides for plant closures, but makes no provision for allocation of vacation pay to those periods. The effectiveness of the allocation must hinge upon the company’s compliance with the provisions of Rule 302.”

Neither of the posted notices referred to the allocation of vacation pay or that employees might be ineligible for unemployment benefits upon receipt of the vacation pay.

“Since the notices in this case do not meet with the requirements of Rule 302, the decision of the MESC allowing benefits … is affirmed.”

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