Categories
10. Voluntary Leaving

Coleman v MESC – 10.38

Coleman v MESC
Digest no. 10.38

Section 29(1)(a)

Cite as: Coleman v MESC, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued March 21, 1990 (Docket No. 117120).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: William N. Coleman
Employer: General Motors
Docket no.: B87 02913 105830
Date of decision: March 21, 1990

View/download the full decision

COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: Where a claimant who is given a choice among reasonable alternatives decides to accept a “buy-out” he is subject to disqualification for voluntary leaving.

FACTS: Claimant began working for the employer in 1978 at a GM warehouse near his home. In 1986, GM announced it was closing this warehouse at the end of the year. GM tried to relocate the employees, and offered to pay relocation expenses for employees relocating more than 35 miles from home. Claimant was given three options (1) to accept a transfer to the GM Tech Center approximately 50 miles away; (2) a lay-off with benefits for one year; (3) a buy-out of approximately $50,000.00. Claimant chose the buy-out.

DECISION: Claimant is disqualified for voluntary leaving.

RATIONALE: “The board found that if plaintiff would have accepted the job at the Warren technical center his seniority and pay would not have been affected. While the location was further from plaintiff’s home, plaintiff’s reason for not accepting the job was the lack of job security. The board concluded that plaintiff has as much security as any other employee and, therefore, plaintiff was presented with a choice between accepting a job and signing the special incentive separation agreement. Hence, plaintiff had a choice of reasonable alternatives and chose to quit without good cause attributable to his employer. … We agree with the board’s decision that plaintiff’s options presented reasonable alternatives and, therefore, made plaintiff’s decision to quit a voluntary one.”

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

Categories
10. Voluntary Leaving

Davidson v Globe Security Systems – 10.43

Davidson v Globe Security Systems
Digest no. 10.43

Section 29(1)(a)

Cite as: Davidson v Globe Security Systems, No. 82-10158 AW Monroe Circuit Court (January 25, 1985).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Dennis Davidson
Employer: Globe Security Systems
Docket no.: B81 02428 76380
Date of decision: January 25, 1985

View/download the full decision

CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: Claimant was laid off when the employer unreasonably deprived claimant of work.

FACTS: The employer decided to eliminate the day shift of guards and to continue the afternoon and night shifts. The seniority of some day guards entitled them to bump a corresponding number of afternoon and night guards. Claimant could not immediately answer when he was asked whether he wanted afternoon or night shift, and replied that he wanted time to think. The employer treated this response as a quit.

DECISION: Claimant is not disqualified for voluntary leaving.

RATIONALE: “The employer gave the claimant a right to choose. The effect on a person’s lifestyle in choosing one shift as opposed to the other could and probably would be very great. The employer reasonably had three options: to make an immediate assignment to either shift; to fix time for the employee to consider; to tell the employee he must make an immediate choice or be deemed to have quit. The employer followed none of these options, but opted unreasonably to deprive the employee of any work.”

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

Categories
10. Voluntary Leaving

Toner v Physician’s Bookkeeper, Inc – 10.41

Toner v Physician’s Bookkeeper, Inc
Digest no. 10.41

Section 29(1)(a)

Cite as: Toner v Physician’s Bookkeeper, Inc, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued January 15, 1985 (Docket No. 75551).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Debbie Toner
Employer: Physician’s Bookkeeper, Inc.
Docket no.: B81 11228 69170
Date of decision: January 15, 1985

View/download the full decision

COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: Substantial evidence supports the conclusion that plaintiff quit her job.

FACTS: Plaintiff, a full-time student, was asked to work eight hours of overtime, along with the other employees, because of a temporary backlog of work. Plaintiff tried several alternatives in attempting to work the overtime hours, but could not avoid a conflict with her school work. The plaintiff told the employer she believed she would have to quit work. The employer asked whether she wanted to give her notice at that time or wait until the second semester. Plaintiff elected to give notice at that time.

DECISION: Claimant is disqualified for voluntary leaving.

RATIONALE: “The Board’s decision turned on resolution of an evidentiary conflict, namely whether plaintiff quit her job or whether she was dismissed. The manager testified that plaintiff quit. Plaintiff admitted experiencing difficulty in reconciling her work hours with her college class schedule. The employer tried to accommodate the needs of the employee. This is not an instance in which the employer coerced the claimant to abandon employment by leaving her with no tenable alternative.”

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

Categories
10. Voluntary Leaving

Chmielewski v General Dynamics – 10.40

Chmielewski v General Dynamics
Digest no. 10.40

Section 29(1)(a)

Cite as: Chmielewski v Gen Dynamics, unpublished opinion of the Kalamazoo Circuit Court, issued January 2, 1985 (Docket No. E834-00-606 AE).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Anthony Chmielewski
Employer: General Dynamics
Docket no.: B83 06554 90342W
Date of decision: January 2, 1985

View/download the full decision

CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: The claimant’s decision to quit was based on economic considerations and was voluntary.

FACTS: The employer cut down on claimant’s overtime. Claimant decided to quit because: (1) his wife had suffered a heart attack and her physician lived in Kalamazoo; (2) claimant desired to use his wife’s health insurance; (3) claimant’s reduced pay made the cost of living away from Portage too prohibitive.

DECISION: Claimant is disqualified for voluntary leaving.

RATIONALE: “Basic purpose of the Michigan Employment Security Act is to provide relief to the unemployed worker and his family from the burden of unemployment … ” The claimant had a real choice – to move his family to Detroit as he had planned before his wife’s heart attack and the cut in overtime – or to quit.

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