Categories
07. Eligibility - Able & Available

Van Sloten v Sea Ray Boats – 7.23

Van Sloten v Sea Ray Boats
Digest no. 7.23

Section 28(1)(c)

Cite as: Van Sloten v Sea Ray Boats, unpublished opinion of the Michigan Employment Security Board of Review, issued May 15, 1979 (Docket No. B77 19555 58611).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Theresa Van Sloten
Employer: Sea Ray Boats
Docket no.: B77 19555 58611
Date of decision: May 15, 1979

View/download the full decision

BOARD OF REVIEW HOLDING: “Nowhere does it state in the Act that possession of an automobile is a prerequisite for collecting benefits.”

FACTS: The referee found the claimant ineligible for benefits for a period during which she did not have an operable automobile. “All the elements necessary for availability and attachment to the labor market were satisfied and found to exist by the referee. Despite all the efforts made by claimant to secure employment, the referee felt the lack of an automobile would preclude her from being eligible for benefits.”

DECISION: The claimant meets the availability requirements of Section 28(1)(c) of the Act.

RATIONALE: “Nowhere does it state in the Act that possession of an automobile is a prerequisite for collecting benefits. A claimant had to make a reasonable effort to secure employment and in this case this was done by the claimant.”

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

Categories
07. Eligibility - Able & Available

Woodall Industries Inc. v. Tracy – 7.38

Woodall Industries Inc. v. Tracy
Digest No. 7.38

Section 421.28

Cite as: Woodall Industries Inc. v. Tracy, unpublished opinion of the Oakland County Circuit Court, issued Sept. 17, 1941 (Docket No. 26150).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Marie Tracy
Employer: Woodall Industries, Inc.
Date of decision: September 17, 1941

View/download the full decision

HOLDING: The requirement that a claimant be “able to work and available for work” includes the ability to procure transportation to the workplace.

FACTS: Claimant lived twenty-two miles from her place of employment.  Claimant quit voluntarily because she lost access to transportation to the place of employment.  The Claimant re-acquired transportation approximately four months later.  Claimant was denied benefits for the period of time when she was without transportation.

DECISION: As a matter of fact and law, claimant was not “able to work and available to work” during the period when she had no means of transportation.  Claimant was eligible for benefits from the time when she re-acquired transportation that allowed her to travel to her place of employment.

RATIONALE: Eligibility for benefits depends on the ability to travel to the place of employment.*

Digest Author: James Mestichelli, Michigan Law, Class of 2017
Digest Updated: 3/27/2016

*The court used 421.28(c), but that language seems to have been amended. That is why the statutory section cited above is just 421.28.