Categories
10. Voluntary Leaving

Dushane v Bailey T L DDS – 10.95

Dushane v Bailey T L DDS
Digest no. 10.95

Section 29(1)(a)

Cite as: Dushane v Bailey T L DDS, unpublished opinion of the Muskegon Circuit Court, issued February 6, 2001 (Docket No. 00-40206-AE).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Tracy L. Dushane
Employer: Bailey T L, DDS
Docket no.: B1999-13378-154400
Date of decision: February 6, 2001

View/download the full decision

CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: The nature of the separation determines whether the claimant is laid off or voluntarily quit, not the labels used by the parties. A layoff is a separation of an employee from employment (a) at the will of the employer, (b) due to a lack of work, and (c) which is at least initially understood by the employer and the employee to be temporary.

FACTS: Claimant approached the employer and asked to be laid off so that she could look for other employment. Employer had work available for claimant. Claimant stated in her application for benefits that she was “laid off due to lack of work.” Claimant admitted in her testimony that it was her choice to leave the job.

DECISION: Claimant is disqualified for voluntary leaving.

RATIONALE: The question to be resolved is whether or not the facts of this matter demonstrate an actual layoff of the claimant as defined by Michigan courts. The Board is not “bound by the words used by the employer and employee to describe the separation.” IM Dach Co v ESC, 347 Mich 465, 489 (1956). The Court of Appeals in MESC v General Motors Corp, 32 Mich App 642, 647 (1971) held that, “A layoff is a termination of employment at the will of the employer, without prejudice to the worker. Layoffs may be due to lack of orders, technical changes, or failure of flow of parts or materials to the job, as needed.” “A ‘layoff’, as distinguished from a discharge, contemplates a period during which a working man is temporarily dismissed . . ..” MESC v General Motors Corp, supra, at 648. In Chrysler Corp v Washington, 52 Mich App 229, 234-235 (1974), the court defined “layoff” as, “To cease to employ (a worker) usually temporarily because of slack in production and without prejudice to the worker usually distinguished from a fire.” In this matter, the claimant admitted she asked for a “layoff” and said she would leave and not come back.

Digest Author:  Board of Review (original digest here)
Digest Updated: 11/04

Categories
10. Voluntary Leaving

Harrison v Hinman Co – 10.116

Harrison v Hinman Co
Digest no. 10.116

Section 29

Cite as: Harrison v Hinman Co, Unpublished Opinion of the Michigan Court of Appeals, Issued Mar. 22, 1996 (Docket No. 166274).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Joyce Harrison
Employer: Hinman Company
Docket no.: 92-002648-AE
Date of decision: March 22, 1996

View/download the full decision

HOLDING: For the issue of whether an employee left work or was discharged under Section 29, the burden of proof falls on the Employer. Thus the burden to prove the nature of the separation (whether it was a quit or a discharge) falls on the employer.

FACTS: The Board of Review’s decision to find in favor of the Claimant was upheld by the Circuit Court. Employer then appealed to the Court of Appeals.

DECISION: The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Circuit Court.

RATIONALE: Prior to reaching the question of whether a claimant should be disqualified for a quit or a discharge under Section 29  the question of the nature of the separation must first be addressed.  Whether the claimant quit or was discharged. For this question, “as with most disqualification issues, the burden of proof falls on the employer.”

In this case, the dispute rests on whether the claimant quit or was discharged. The referee and the Board of Review applied the appropriate standard, and the finding in favor of the Claimant is supported by evidence on the record.

Digest author: Nick Phillips
Digest editor: Jack Battaglia
Digest updated: 8/14

Categories
10. Voluntary Leaving

Borg v MUCC – 10.23

Borg v MUCC
Digest no. 10.23

Section 29(1)(a)

Cite as: Borg v MUCC, unpublished opinion of the Wayne Circuit Court, issued February 28, 1955 (Docket No. B54 749 15677).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Edgar Borg
Employer: Ansaldi Tool & Engineering
Docket no.: B54 749 15677
Date of decision: February 28, 1955

View/download the full decision

CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: “On the question of disqualification for voluntarily leaving without good cause attributable to the employer, it appears to the court that the burden of proof is upon the employer to establish that voluntary leaving took place.”

FACTS: Claimant worked for the employer until November 25, 1953. Claimant testified he did not work between that date and December 4, 1953 because there was no work. Claimant testified that the employer promised to call when work was available, but did not do so. The employer contended that claimant was unwilling to work full time and had voluntarily quit.

DECISION: Claimant is not disqualified.

RATIONALE: The employer did not establish that claimant’s leaving was voluntary.

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