05. Denial Periods

Bernabe v Cornerstone AG Enterprises – 5.20

Bernabe v Cornerstone AG Enterprises
Digest no. 5.20

Section 27(o)

Cite as: Bernabe v Cornerstone Ag Enterprises, unpublished opinion of the Van Buren Circuit Court, issued September 14, 1998 (Docket No. 98-44-392-AE-B).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Ygnacio Bernabe
Employer: Cornerstone AG Enterprises
Docket no.: B98-01921-147951
Date of decision: September 14, 1998

View/download the full decision

CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: An employee who works outside of the designated season is not ineligible for benefits by operation of the seasonal employment denial period set forth in Section 27(o) of the MES Act.

FACTS: The employer operates a blueberry farm. It applied for and received a seasonal employer designation relative to the period June 14 through September 27, 1997. The claimant worked for the employer ten [10] days longer than the season designated by the Unemployment Agency.

DECISION: The claimant was not ineligible under Section 27(o) and may collect benefits during the denial period if otherwise eligible.

RATIONALE: To be ineligible the employee must only receive wages during the season designated by the Agency. Here, the claimant received wages for ten [10] days beyond that period. Consequently, he does not fit the definition of a “seasonal worker.”

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

07. Eligibility - Able & Available

Mikolaicziak v MESC – 7.07

Mikolaicziak v MESC
Digest no. 7.07

Section 28(1)(c)

Cite as: Mikolaicziak v MESC, 40 Mich App 61 (1972).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Leo J. Mikolaicziak, et al.
Employer: Twin Oaks Golf Club, Inc.
Docket no.: B69 573 37067
Date of decision: April 25, 1972

View/download the full decision

COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: (1) Unpaid service as a corporate officer is not employment. (2) A claimant need not be available for permanent work. (3) Weekly compensation for seasonal work is not an annual salary.

FACTS: Three claimants served as unpaid corporate officers of a golf course. Each owned one-third of the shares of the corporation. All performed manual labor and managerial duties, on a rotating basis, during the ten months of annual operation and maintenance. They were paid weekly for their work during the operating season. The claimants received no compensation in the two remaining months, but were available for temporary work then.

DECISION: The claimants are unemployed and available for work.

RATIONALE: “Since the claimants received absolutely no remuneration or compensation for serving as the corporate officers of the Twin Oaks Golf Club, they were not ’employed’ in such capacities within the meaning of Section 42(1) of the Michigan Employment Security Act. See Great Lakes Steel Corporation v Employment Security Commission, 381 Mich 249 (1968).”

“(R)emuneration was paid to them on a ‘weekly’ basis during the months that the golf course was open to the public.” The Act “. . . does not require an unemployed person to be available for and seek ‘permanent’ full-time work, but rather full-time work.”

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