Categories
10. Voluntary Leaving

Lee v Bermex, Inc – 10.87

Lee v Bermex, Inc
Digest no. 10.87

Section 29(1)(a)

Cite as: Lee v Bermex, Inc, unpublished opinion of the Wayne County Circuit Court, issued January 27, 1994 (Docket No. 93-324459-AE).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Christopher A. Lee
Employer: Bermex, Inc.
Docket no.: B91-3452-RO1-121313W
Date of decision: January 27, 1994

View/download the full decision

CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: A loss of a prerequisite of employment through one’s own inaction is a purely voluntary leaving, not a constructive leaving.

FACTS: Claimant worked as a meter reader. As a requirement of employment, the claimant was expected to have a vehicle. The claimant met this requirement when hired, but later “totaled” his vehicle. The employer allowed the claimant to use public transportation or car-pool with another employee until he found a replacement vehicle. This accommodation continued for seven months. The employer gave the claimant an advance pay-out of vacation time to purchase a vehicle. The employer was unable to continue to accommodate the claimant’s lack of a vehicle. The claimant failed to obtain a vehicle. The employer discharged the claimant.

DECISION: The claimant is disqualified for benefits under Section 29(1)(a).

RATIONALE: The court distinguished this matter from Clarke v North Detroit General Hosp, 437 Mich 280 (1991). Unlike the nurses in Clarke who took steps to meet their condition of employment by preparing for an examination, the claimant in the present matter “made no effort to meet his condition of employment.” The claimant’s discharge “resulted from his decision not to do anything about his situation for a lengthy period of time.” His leaving “could reasonably be characterized as volitional, freely chosen and willful – in short, voluntary.” The court found applicable Echols v MESC, 4 Mich App 173 (1966), and City of Saginaw v Lindquist, 139 Mich App 515 (1984), which hold that a loss of a prerequisite of employment through one’s actions is a voluntary leaving without good cause attributable to the employer.

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

Categories
10. Voluntary Leaving

Clarke v North Detroit General Hospital – 10.48

Clarke v North Detroit General Hospital
Digest no. 10.48

Section 29(1)(a)

Cite as: Clarke v North Detroit Gen Hosp, 437 Mich 280 (1991).

Appeal pending: No
Claimants: Edna T. Clarke; Toni R. Dawson
Employers: North Detroit General Hospital; Detroit Receiving Hospital
Docket nos.: B85 06161 100961; B85 06779 100382W
Date of decision: May 28, 1991

View/download the full decision

SUPREME COURT HOLDING: The claimants did not leave work voluntarily when they were discharged after failing the nursing board licensing examination.

FACTS: Both claimants were graduates of college-based nursing programs. Following their graduations they obtained temporary state nursing licenses as required by statute which permitted them to work as graduate nurses. In order to obtain a permanent license as a registered nurse, both were required to take and pass the state licensing exam. Both took the exam. Both failed. As a result they both lost their temporary licenses and employment as graduate nurses, consistent with the policies of their employing hospitals. Neither quit nor willingly resigned.

DECISION: The claimants are not disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation benefits.

RATIONALE: The claimants did not voluntarily leave their employment. Rather, they were discharged by the employers after failing the licensing examination. The employers did not allege misconduct, negligence or illegal acts and there was no evidence that either claimant was negligent in preparing for or taking the examinations. Fault cannot be ascribed to the claimants merely because they failed the examination.

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

Categories
10. Voluntary Leaving

City of Saginaw v Lindquist – 10.04

City of Saginaw v Lindquist
Digest no. 10.04

Section 29(1)(a)

Cite as: City of Saginaw v Lindquist, sub nom Parks v ESC, 427 Mich 224 (1986).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Nancy A. Lindquist
Employer: City of Saginaw
Docket no.: B81 06822 RO1 78455
Date of decision: December 26, 1986

View/download the full decision

SUPREME COURT HOLDING: Failure to sufficiently comply with a condition of employment constitutes a voluntary leaving without good cause attributable to the employer.

FACTS: The claimant was working for the involved employer when she moved from Saginaw to Lupton with her husband and children. She lived in Saginaw a few days a week to be close to work but never intended the Saginaw address to be her permanent address. The claimant was terminated for failing to maintain a bona fide residence in the City of Saginaw as required by its Administrative Code.

DECISION: The claimant is disqualified pursuant to Section 29(1)(a) of the MES Act.

RATIONALE: Although the claimant did not resign because of the change in the location of her residence, her failure to sufficiently comply with the residency requirement, a condition of her employment, constituted a voluntary leaving without good cause attributable to the employer. The court was not persuaded that claimant’s attempts to comply with the requirement constituted wilful “misconduct connected with work.” The claimant is treated “as if she had done that which was presumably required under the circumstances — resigned because of the relocation of her permanent residence.”

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

Categories
10. Voluntary Leaving

Echols v MESC – 10.49

Echols v MESC
Digest no. 10.49

Section 29(1)(a)

Cite as: Echols v MESC, 380 Mich 87 (1968).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Bruce Echols
Employer: John Kraus, d.b.a. Checker Cab
Docket no.: B63 5770 31807
Date of decision: February 9, 1968

View/download the full decision

SUPREME COURT HOLDING: “[T]he loss of a claimant’s prerequisites from continued employment, especially through his own negligence is a voluntary leaving without good cause attributable to the employer . … [T]he claimant lost his operator’s license through no fault of the employer and it is our opinion that his leaving was not constructive but purely a voluntary leaving and he should be disqualified.”

FACTS: Claimant was a taxicab driver. His driver’s license was suspended for 90 days as the result of the accumulation of 12 points or more. Claimant therefore was unable to work as a taxicab driver. Claimant was not discharged by his employer. The employer indicated at the Referee hearing that claimant could return to work as soon as he had his license restored.

DECISION: Claimant is disqualified for voluntarily leaving his employment without good cause attributable to the employer.

RATIONALE: “The employee because of his negligent operation of an automobile was unable to obtain a license from the Secretary of State’s office, and it was incumbent upon him to have a license to be employed.” “… to put a stamp of approval on unemployment benefits for a man who had been violating the law and say a man who violates the law and lost his license as a result of his negligence, should be paid unemployment benefits, … goes far and beyond what the intention of the unemployment compensation act was.” (Quoting with approval from the decisions of the Appeal Board and the Wayne County Circuit Court.)

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