Categories
10. Voluntary Leaving

Kirby v Benton Harbor Screw Co – 10.64

Kirby v Benton Harbor Screw Co
Digest no. 10.64

Section 29(1)(a)

Cite as: Kirby v Benton Harbor Screw Co, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued June 16, 1995 (Docket No. 163513).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Michael J. Kirby
Employer: Benton Harbor Screw Co.
Docket no.: B90-10197-116367W
Date of decision: June 16, 1995

View/download the full decision

COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: The Board of Review decision must be affirmed if based on competent, material, substantial evidence in the record and in accordance with the law.

FACTS: The parties disagreed as to the proper characterization of the separation.

On February 15, 1990, his last day of work, the claimant received an unfavorable evaluation. He finished his shift that day and went home. He returned to the plant later that evening. While there, he went to his office, reconciled his petty cash account, left documentation of his expense account, cleared his personal belongings from his desk and left his company keys. He also asked two co-workers to witness these acts and verify he was only taking his personal effects. While departing the claimant mumbled an obscenity and stated, “I’m leaving.” Thereafter, the claimant appeared to work at his regular time the following Monday only to discover he had been replaced.

DECISION: Claimant is disqualified for voluntary leaving.

RATIONALE: Although the circuit court and Court of Appeals may have reached a different conclusion given the facts in the record, the circuit court decision was reversed and the Board of Review decision reinstated because there was competent, material and substantial evidence to support the Referee and Board’s finding that the claimant had voluntarily left his employment.

Digest Author: Board of Review (original digest here)
Digest Updated:
7/99

Categories
10. Voluntary Leaving

Imlay City Community Schools v Merillat – 10.70

Imlay City Community Schools v Merillat
Digest no. 10.70

Section 29(1)(a)

Cite as: Imlay City Community Schools v Merillat, unpublished opinion of the Lapeer Circuit Court, issued August 22, 1988 (Docket No. 86-011243 AE(B)).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Calvin Merillat
Employer: Imlay City Community Schools
Docket no.: B85-05959-99964
Date of decision: August 22, 1988

View/download the full decision

CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: Where claimant, a non-tenured teacher, initiates his resignation after receiving an unfavorable, but grievable, evaluation, he is disqualified for voluntary leaving.

FACTS: The claimant was employed as a probationary teacher for one school year. Because of his probationary status, the claimant did not have rights under the Teacher Tenure Act. The high school principal evaluated the claimant’s performance. The evaluation indicated the claimant’s performance was unsatisfactory and recommended that the Board of Education not renew the claimant’s contract for the following school year. Upon reviewing his evaluation, the claimant resigned rather than let the evaluation and recommendation be forwarded to the School Board. There was a grievance procedure in place which would have allowed the claimant to contest the unfavorable evaluation or a decision by the School Board not to renew his contract.

DECISION: Claimant is disqualified for benefits under the voluntary leaving provision.

RATIONALE: The Board of Review found that since the principal had recommended the claimant’s contract not be renewed, the claimant had in effect been discharged. The court found this ruling to be erroneous as the claimant initiated the idea of resignation. The court observed that not only was the evaluation contestable through a grievance procedure, but the principal had no authority to discharge the claimant. Moreover, the School Board could have refused to follow the principal’s recommendation, or, if they had not renewed his contract, that decision itself could have been subject to grievance.

Digest Author: Board of Review (original digest here)
Digest Updated:
7/99