07. Eligibility - Able & Available

Silverstein v Chrysler Corp – 7.20

Silverstein v Chrysler Corp
Digest no. 7.20

Section 28(1)(c)

Cite as: Silverstein v Chrysler Corp, unpublished opinion of the Michigan Employment Security Board of Review, issued November 19, 1979 (No. B78 04755 61400).

Appeal Pending:No
Claimant: Myer M. Silverstein
Employer: Chrysler Corporation
Docket no.: B78 04755 61400
Date of decision: November 19, 1979

View/download the full decision

BOARD OF REVIEW HOLDING:Where an individual’s prior employment involved substantial overtime, and the claimant has requalified for benefits after a disqualifying separation, the claimant’s availability can no longer be limited to work which would provide at least as much in annual earnings as the preceding job did.

FACTS: “Here, the claimant testified that he was earning approximately $20,000 per year at Chrysler Corporation prior to his retirement. He added that he was available for employment that paid a similar wage (T, p. 13). A review of the record indicates that claimant did earn wages at a weekly rate that would amount to $20,000 annually (Exhibit No. 2). The claimant earned $7.69 per hour, therefore, it appears that he was including over-time pay in his wage total.”

DECISION:The claimant is not eligible for benefits subsequent to the requalification period.

RATIONALE:“Surely the claimant here should not be penalized because he initially expected to find employment at a wage comparable to that which he most recently earned. However, in light of the fact that his wage requirements were somewhat inflated due to the inclusion of over-time pay, and the fact that at some point his wage demands became excessive, we must find that he was required to lower his ‘sights’ after a reasonable period of time. We find that during the period of requalification, it was not unreasonable that the claimant expected to find employment at his previous rate. However, after requalifying and then being qualified to collect unemployment benefits, he was required to ‘lower his sights’ and accept a lower wage. By applying this ‘rule of reason,’ the majority of the Board panel is of the opinion that the claimant was given ample time to test the waters of the market and obtain employment at his previous rate during his requalification period.”

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