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Cite as: Makela v Waterford School Dist, unpublished opinion of the Michigan Employment Security Board of Review, issued April 9, 1980 (No. B79 01484 66562).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

Categories
07. Eligibility - Able & Available

McKentry v MESC – 7.28

McKentry v MESC
Digest no. 7.28

Section 28(1)(c)

Cite as: McKentry v MESC, 99 Mich App 277 (1980).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Bessie McKentry, et al.
Employer: Muskegon Area Intermediate School District
Docket no.: 43884
Date of decision: August 11, 1980

View/download the full decision

COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: “A plain reading of the statute does not indicate that a claimant must be able to perform his last job but only that ‘he is able and available to perform full-time work for which has previously received wages.'”

FACTS: The claimant, a teacher aide, was treated for knee trouble.

“[P]laintiff testified that she could not return to work for defendant school district because she could not stand on her feet all day. However, she also testified that there was work which she had performed in the past which she could still do, such as working for the telephone company or for Misco Corporation.”

DECISION: The claimant is eligible for benefits.

RATIONALE: “The lower court and the administrative agency focused on the fact that the plaintiff could not perform the job she last held with defendant school district in determining that plaintiff was not able and available to perform full-time work. A plain reading of the statute does not indicate that a claimant must be able to perform his last job but only that ‘he is able and available to perform full-time work for which he has previously received wages.'”

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