04. Total or Partial Unemployment

Weideman v Interlakes Engineering Co – 4.07

Weideman v Interlakes Engineering Co
Digest no. 4.07

Section 48

Cite as: Weideman v Interlakes Engineering Co, unpublished opinion of the Macomb Circuit Court, issued November 28, 1975 (Docket No. 744941 AE).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: William Weideman, et al.
Employer: Interlakes Engineering Company
Docket no.: B73 3107 43951, et al.
Date of decision: November 28, 1975

View/download the full decision

CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: Back pay received as the result of an N.L.R.B. settlement agreement is remuneration under Section 48 of the Act, even where the amount is less than the claimed loss of wages.

FACTS: The claimants received $10,000.00 under a settlement agreement approved by the National Labor Relations Board. The claimants alleged their total wage loss was $26,000.00. “It is claimed that the Appellants assumed that the actual compensation for loss of wages was covered by their unemployment benefits from the MESC and that the $10,000.00 settlement was remuneration for loss of fringe benefits.”

DECISION: The back pay is remuneration under the Act.

RATIONALE: The Court quoted the text of the settlement agreement:

Paragraph 7 referred to states that the employer shall ‘Make whole the below-named employees for any loss of pay they may have suffered by payment of a lump sum settlement of $10,000.00 …’ From the terms of the agreement it is clear that the stipulation and the order indicate that the lump sum settlement was a back pay award. Appellants claim that the stipulation is silent as to back pay. In addition this Court notes that the National Labor Relations Board has no authority to pay a discriminatee damages for anything other than lost wages.

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