Categories
10. Voluntary Leaving

Mann v H & H Wholesale, Inc – 10.68

Mann v H & H Wholesale, Inc
Digest no. 10.68

Section 29(1)(a)

Cite as: Mann v H & H Wholesale, Inc, unpublished opinion of the Wayne Circuit Court, issued September 14, 1989 (Docket No. 89-910064-AE).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Earl Mann
Employer: H & H Wholesale, Inc.
Docket no.: B88-00843-108076
Date of decision: September 14, 1989

View/download the full decision

CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: A 15% reduction in pay does not constitute good cause attributable to the employer.

FACTS: While employed, claimant had earned $8.00 per hour and worked 47 1/2 hours per week. Near the end of claimant’s employment the employer became aware it was obligated to pay the claimant time and a half for overtime. The employer informed the claimant he would receive all back pay owed and the claimant’s schedule would be reduced to 40 hours per week. The reduction in hours would have resulted in a net decrease in the claimant’s pay of 15%. Claimant quit.

DECISION: Claimant is disqualified for voluntary leaving.

RATIONALE: In contrast to other cases involving greater reductions in pay, the court found as a matter of law the 15% reduction was not substantial enough to constitute good cause to leave employment.

Note, in reaching its’ decision, the circuit court observed that it was reviewing the facts as found by the Board, as the Board is the ultimate fact-finder, not the Referee.

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

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Cite as: Chmielewski v Gen Dynamics, unpublished opinion of the Kalamazoo Circuit Court, issued January 2, 1985 (Docket No. E834-00-606 AE).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

Categories
10. Voluntary Leaving

Wasolaskus v Tom’s Grandville Station – 10.21

Wasolaskus v Tom’s Grandville Station
Digest no. 10.21

Section 29(1)(a)

Cite as: Wasolaskus v Tom’s Grandville Station, unpublished opinion of the Michigan Employment Security Board of Review, issued August 21, 1978 (Docket No. FSB76 13211 55248).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Dennis Wasolaskus
Employer: Tom’s Grandville Station
Docket no.: FSB76 13211 55248
Date of decision: August 21, 1978

View/download the full decision

BOARD OF REVIEW HOLDING: A seventeen (17) percent reduction in wages is good cause for voluntarily leaving part-time work.

FACTS: The claimant was a part-time attendant at a filling station. He worked 20 hours per week at $2.50 per hour. The claimant’s pay was subsequently reduced about $40.00 per month by his removal from the Saturday work schedule. The claimant resigned as a result.

DECISION: The claimant is not disqualified for voluntary leaving.

RATIONALE:Jack Desser, d/b/a/ Jack Desser Biscuit Company v Appeal Board, Wayne County Circuit Court, No. 324-748 (July 5, 1962), held that a ‘substantial reduction’ in wages can constitute ‘good cause’ for quitting one’s employment. The ‘substantial reduction’ in Desser consisted of a 20 percent reduction in claimant’s gross commissions. The curtailment of hours imposed by employer upon claimant in this case would have reduced his income by approximately 17 percent if he had continued his employment. The reduction in wages was ‘substantial.’

“The part-time nature of claimant’s employment does not, per se alter the substantiality of the reduction in claimant’s wages.”

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

Categories
10. Voluntary Leaving

Copper Range Co v UCC – 10.01

Copper Range Co v UCC
Digest no. 10.01

Section 29(1)(a)

Cite as: Copper Range Co v UCC, 320 Mich 460 (1948).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: James W. Austin, et al.
Employer: Copper Range Co.
Docket no.: B5 9204 2910
Date of decision: April 5, 1948

View/download the full decision

SUPREME COURT HOLDING: Where employees are threatened with the loss of their jobs if they refuse a pay cut, their action in rejecting the proposal, followed by the permanent closing of the facility, does not constitute voluntary leaving.

FACTS: The market price of the employer’s product fell sharply at the end of World War II. The 539 claimants were asked to accept a reduction in their wage scale, and were told the company would not continue operations at the existing pay rates. The employees voted down the pay cut. The employer closed the facility permanently.

DECISION: The claimants are not disqualified for voluntary leaving.

RATIONALE: “(W)e are not as yet prepared to accept and apply the doctrine of constructive voluntary leaving, particularly in the light of the circumstances of the instant case.”

“To place the stamp of judicial approval upon the contentions of appellee in the instant case would be tantamount to the issuance of a notice to all employers in Michigan that, whenever they are confronted with economic loss, they can demand an abrogation of their working agreements and reduce compensation to a point unacceptable to employees, and thereby absolve themselves of the responsibilities imposed upon them by the unemployment compensation act.”

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