Categories
05. Denial Periods

Riekse v Grand Rapids Public Schools – 5.04

Riekse v Grand Rapids Public Schools
Digest no. 5.04

Section 27(i)

Cite as: Riekse v Grand Rapids Pub Schools, 144 Mich App 790 (1985).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Nancy Riekse
Employer: Grand Rapids Public Schools
Docket no.: B83 16325 93580W
Date of decision: August 6, 1985

View/download the full decision

COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: If a teacher had a reasonable expectation of re-employment during the next academic year, unemployment compensation may be properly denied.

FACTS: Claimant had been a substitute teacher for the past seven years in the employer’s school system. During the ending school year, claimant had taught 125 days. Claimant received a letter from the employer indicating that, “based upon the best financial data available and a comprehensive analysis of projected staffing needs,” she could be reasonably assured that she would be offered a substitute teaching position during the incoming school year. Claimant returned an application for employment as a substitute and attended an in service meeting for teachers on September 6, 1983.

DECISION: Claimant is ineligible for unemployment benefits.

RATIONALE: Claimant had substantial and reasonable assurance that she would be re-employed. She had been employed as a substitute teacher for seven preceding years. The letter expressly stated claimant was reasonably assured of employment. Claimant had attended in service training. The term reasonable assurance does not require a formal written or oral agreement to rehire.

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Cite as: MESC v Orchard View School Dist, unpublished opinion of the Muskegon Circuit Court, issued January 12, 1983 (Docket No. 82-16963 AV).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