Categories
05. Denial Periods

School District of the Village of Spring Lake, Ottawa County v Bassett – 5.05

School District of the Village of Spring Lake, Ottawa County v Bassett
Digest no. 5.05

Section 27(i)

Cite as: School Dist of the Village of Spring Lake, Ottawa County v Bassett, unpublished opinion of the Ottawa Circuit Court, issued June 10, 1983 (Docket No. 81-5806-AV).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Charles Bassett, Deborah L. Boyink, et al.
Employer: Village of Spring Lake
Docket no.: B80 16573 RO1 75319
Date of decision: June 10, 1983

View/download the full decision

CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: As of June 30, 1980, claimants’ employment status was insecure, uncertain and very much in doubt.

FACTS: The school district scheduled a millage vote for June 9, 1980. The millage vote failed. On June 2, 1980,the school district sent a letter to claimant(s) notifying them that they no longer had reasonable assurance of reemployment. A second millage vote was scheduled for August 26, 1980. The school district sent a letter to Claimant(s) on July 7, 1980, extending reasonable assurance based upon the potential passage of the millage.

DECISION: Claimants are eligible for benefits.

RATIONALE: Black’s Law Dictionary defines “assurance” as “a pledge, guarantee, or surety, a representation or declaration tending to inspire full confidence, a making secure.” The record discloses a number of facts that would make claimants insecure regarding their future employment: (1) The first millage vote failed. (2) The Superintendent of Schools prepared a “Tentative Lay-Off Roster-Professional Staff,” which he shared with claimants. The roster stated that the claimants “will in all probability be placed on lay-off status as of June 2, 1980, in anticipation of uncertain employment … ” (3) Claimants’ names were placed in the Board of Education minutes of June 23, 1980 as being those identified for layoff.

The statutory language recited in the July 7, 1981 letter was insufficient to alter … the preceding circumstances.

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

Categories
05. Denial Periods

MESC v Orchard View School District – 5.03

MESC v Orchard View School District
Digest no. 5.03

Section 27(i)

Cite as: MESC v Orchard View School Dist, unpublished opinion of the Muskegon Circuit Court, issued January 12, 1983 (Docket No. 82-16963 AV).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Susan D. Stone
Employer: Orchard View School District
Docket no.: ERB81 12652 80417
Date of decision: January 12, 1983

View/download the full decision

CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: Substitute teachers are not excepted from the school denial provisions of the Act.

FACTS: Claimant, a contract teacher, was laid off for lack of work. She applied for unemployment benefits and began working as a substitute teacher for Orchard View and Mona Shores School Districts. Mona Shores School District provided one or two days a week of substitute teaching. She was given assurance that she would be on the substitute teachers’ list for Mona Shores School District for the following semester.

DECISION: Claimant is ineligible for benefits.

RATIONALE: The Act itself does not spell out that substitute work for a contract full time teacher excepts Claimant from the denial provisions of the Act. “When exceptions are being dealt with, it is necessary that there be a strict interpretation of the Act.”

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

Categories
10. Voluntary Leaving

Makela v Waterford School District – 10.20

Makela v Waterford School District
Digest no. 10.20

Section 29(1)(a)

Cite as: Makela v Waterford School Dist, unpublished opinion of the Michigan Employment Security Board of Review, issued April 9, 1980 (No. B79 01484 66562).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Eve Makela
Employer: Waterford School District
Docket no.: B79 01484 66562
Date of decision: April 9, 1980

View/download the full decision

BOARD OF REVIEW HOLDING: Where an individual is on a layoff for lack of work, and resigns to accept work with another employer, the claimant is not disqualified for voluntary leaving.

FACTS: The claimant, a teacher aide, was laid off in June. She received reasonable assurance or reemployment in the fall. While on layoff, the claimant accepted office work with another employer, and resigned the teacher aide position.

DECISION: The claimant is not disqualified for voluntary leaving.

RATIONALE: “Prior Board decisions have consistently held that in order for the disqualification provisions of Section 29(1)(a) to apply the claimant must be actually in employment or that the employment relationship continues as in the case of a leave of absence or labor dispute. Here, the claimant was not in employment when she quit and, therefore, is not subject to the disqualification provisions of the Act. See Wright (Packard Motor Car Co), Appeal Docket No. B9-1771-9898 (1949).”

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