Categories
04. Total or Partial Unemployment

Van Wormer Industries v MESC – 4.03

Van Wormer Industries v MESC
Digest no. 4.03

Section 48

Cite as: Van Wormer Industries v MESC, unpublished opinion of the Macomb Circuit Court, issued February 28, 1985 (Docket No. 84-2768 AE).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Jerry L. McCullough
Employer: Van Wormer Industries
Docket no.: B83 21674 96043W
Date of decision: February 28, 1985

View/download the full decision

CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: Where an employer fails to properly allocate vacation pay to a period of lay-off, the vacation pay is not remuneration under Section 48 of the Act.

FACTS: On May 2, 1983, the employer posted a notice that the entire plant would be closed for a one week vacation period effective June 30, to July 11, 1983. The contract provided that employer could not shutdown the plant unless such action was announced by the employer not later than May 1st. May 1st was a Sunday. On May 2, 1983, the claimant requested and was granted vacation time for the period July 16, to July 31. Claimant filed for unemployment for the period of the plant shutdown.

DECISION: The claimant is eligible for benefits for the period of the plant shutdown under Section 48.

RATIONALE: “It is settled that an employer may lawfully designate a period during lay-off for the allocation of vacation, Brown v LTV Aerospace Corp, 394 Mich 702, .” In this case, the employer did not make a proper allocation.

“The terms of the collective bargaining agreement specify that the plant may be closed for a two week vacation period, announced by the employer not later than May 1st. (emphasis provided). It is undisputed that on May 2nd, the employer posted a notice stating the plant would be closed for a one week vacation period effective June 30, 1983 at 4:00 p.m. through July 11, 1983 at 7:30 p.m. The notice did not comply with specified requirements. …

” … it must be kept in mind that the Michigan Employment Security Act is remedial in nature and is to be liberally construed to provide coverage, and its disqualification provisions are to be narrowly interpreted. Kempf v Michigan Bell Telephone Co 137 Mich App 574 (1974).”

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

Categories
12. Misconduct

Chrysler Corp v Adams (Woolsey) – 12.26

Chrysler Corp v Adams (Woolsey)
Digest no. 12.26

Section 29(1)(b)

Cite as: Chrysler Corp v Adams, unpublished opinion of the Ingham Circuit Court, issued March 5, 1979 (Docket No. 77-20043 AE).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Thomas G. Adams (Woolsey)
Employer: Chrysler Corp.
Docket no.: B73 8026 46162
Date of decision: March 5, 1979

View/download the full decision

CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: Where a supervisor’s use of profanity, racial insults, and the threat of bodily harm, compounded by denial of such conduct, leads to a plant shutdown, the claimant’s resulting discharge is for misconduct.

FACTS: The claimant was a supervisor. In spite of a warning receive after a walkout, the claimant deliberately confronted an employee with profanity, racial insults and the threat of bodily harm. The claimant denied his conduct initially. After employees shut down much of the plant, he admitted the essential details and was discharged.

DECISION: The claimant was discharged for misconduct.

RATIONALE: “An important element in the examination of a misconduct situation is to view the level of responsibility the claimant owes to the employer and what hardship was caused the employer by the claimant’s action. Wickey v Employment Security Commission, 369 Mich 487, 502 (1963). Disqualification for misconduct may be based on one incident or a series of acts that evidence the requisite disregard for the employer’s interest. Booker v Employment Security Commission, 369 Mich 547 (1963); and Giddens v Employment Security Commission, 4 Mich App 526 (1966). Conduct reported after a warning about the continuation of certain acts had constituted misconduct under the ‘last straw’ doctrine. Giddens, supra at 535. Michigan courts have also found misconduct in the use of foul, profane and provocative language. Miller v FW Woolworth, 359 Mich 342 (1960); Carter v Employment Security Commission, 364 Mich 538 (1961).

“Plaintiff was not acting as a ‘reasonable person to great provocation,’ but as the aggressor failed to abide by the higher standard of behavior demanded of management personnel. Furthermore, plaintiff lied to his superiors, which precluded them from averting an unnecessary and harmful plant “shutdown.”

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