04. Total or Partial Unemployment

Fletcher v Atrex Corp – 4.29

Fletcher v Atrex Corp
Digest no. 4.29

Sections 48, 44

Cite as: Fletcher v Atrex Corp, unpublished opinion of the Macomb Circuit Court, issued October 22, 1997 (Docket No. 96-7137-AE).

Appeal pending: No
Claimants: Clare Fletcher
Employer: Color Custom Compounding, Inc., d/b/a Atrex Corporation
Docket no.: FSC 95-00061-136470W
Date of decision: October 22, 1997

View/download the full decision

CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: Where claimant spent her time performing services, though not paid for those services until after the fact, she was nonetheless employed and received remuneration.

FACTS: Claimant had a benefit year in effect in May 1992 when she began performing services for Universal Plastics. At that time, that employer was unable to offer her a paying job. Nonetheless, claimant continued to perform services until she was officially hired there August 1, 1992, at which time she informed the Agency that she was employed. After claimant was hired she was compensated retroactively for the services she performed between May and August 1992. When the Agency became aware of this a determination was issued holding claimant ineligible for the May – August period under Section 48.

DECISION: Claimant is ineligible for benefits for the period May 3, 1992, through July 11, 1992, under Section 48.

RATIONALE: Remuneration is compensation for personal services and is not limited by the statute as to when it is paid – it may be paid after the service is rendered and not in the form of an hourly or weekly rate. The substantial amounts claimant received in addition to her regular wages after she was hired were, in fact, remuneration for services rendered during the period in question.

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

07. Eligibility - Able & Available

Bolles v MESC – 7.01

Bolles v MESC
Digest no. 7.01

Section 28(1)(c)

Cite as: Bolles v MESC, 361 Mich 378 (1960).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Lewis F. Bolles
Employer: Continental Motors Corporation
Date of decision: September 16, 1960

View/download the full decision

SUPREME COURT HOLDING: “. . . the test properly to be employed is that of genuine attachment to the labor market.”

FACTS: Claimants were laid off by the employer. Each had been trained in watch repair work and each had at one time or another engaged in this occupation. Consequently, they pooled their resources, rented a building, remodeled and redecorated, and opened it for business under the name of Muskegon Jewelers. They advertised and they did what work they could get. It wasn’t much. Each averaged about a dollar a day over the period in question.

During the period of seven weeks’ operation from October 30 through December 17, the period here involved, the claimants reported a total gain each of around $60.00 although some doubt is cast upon the accuracy of such figures as “gain” since additional expenses of almost the same amount had not been included in the computation. During this same period both claimants were actively seeking work in industry; both applied, unsuccessfully, for jobs referred to them by the Employment Security Commission, and both drew their unemployment compensation.

DECISION: Claimants were unemployed within the meaning of Section 48 of the Act.

RATIONALE: … all courts would undoubtedly agree that the Act was not intended to place a premium on idleness, to stifle initiative, or to penalize a laid-off worker’s attempt to make his time economically productive. The claimants before us, subsequent to their lay-off, continued seeking work. Each of them accepted referrals to other industrial employment. Each was ready, willing, able, and anxious to continue work in industry. They were genuinely attached to the labor market, neither casually nor as a matter of transition. There meager efforts to augment their unemployment checks did not break their genuine attachment to the labor market.

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