Categories
04. Total or Partial Unemployment

Blanding v Kelsey Hayes – 4.06

Blanding v Kelsey Hayes
Digest no. 4.06

Section 48

Cite as: Blanding v Kelsey-Hayes Co, No. 80 022124 AE, unpublished opinion of the Wayne County Circuit Court, issued February 18, 1981 (Docket No. 80 022124 AE).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: James Blanding, et al.
Employer: Kelsey-Hayes Co.
Docket no.: B76 13949(1) 60456 et al.
Date of decision: February 18, 1981

View/download the full decision

CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: Where a contract requires payment of vacation pay in March of each year, and allows designation of a vacation shutdown period, the March payment is not remuneration.

FACTS: The claimants received their vacation pay in March of each year, as specified in the union contract. Section 19 of the contract allowed designation of a vacation shutdown period. “At various times in 1975 and 1976 the management at the three plants invoked the company’s option, as provided in Section 19, to require vacations to be taken during a plant shutdown period.”

DECISION: The payments in question are not remuneration under Section 48 of the Act.

RATIONALE: The Court cited Renown Stove Co v UCC, 328 Mich 436 (1950), and Hubbard v UCC, 328 Mich 444 (1950). “The lesson of the Hubbard and Renown Stovecases is that the questioned payments, being payable at the specific time and without regard to whether vacation time is also taken, do not qualify in the first instance under Section 48 as ‘amounts paid … for a vacation,’ are bonuses instead, and are therefore not subject to the employer’s right of allocation.” “The rationale of the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Section 48 seems clear. Although vacation pay is deemed remuneration, a payment cannot be considered remuneration for the period of unemployment if the employee is entitled to the payment in all events without regard to the period of unemployment.”

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

Categories
04. Total or Partial Unemployment

Turner v Creative Industries of Detroit, Inc – 4.09

Turner v Creative Industries of Detroit, Inc
Digest no. 4.09

Section 48

Cite as: Turner v Creative Industries of Detroit, Inc, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals of Michigan, issued April 30, 1980 (No. 44061).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Jimmy Turner, et al.
Employer: Creative Industries of Detroit, Inc.
Docket no.: B76 3548 (1) 53458, et al.
Date of decision: April 30, 1980

View/download the full decision

COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: Where holiday pay is distributed in every weekly paycheck, as a percentage of straight time earnings, it is not allocated to the designated holidays.

FACTS: The union contract and a supplemental agreement established a vacation shutdown from December 22 through January 2. “The contract further provided that holiday pay would no longer be distributed to employees at the time of the holiday. Instead, ‘each employee’s weekly paycheck … [would] include an amount equal to 4.2 percent of his straight time hours worked.'”

DECISION: The claimants are eligible for benefits for the vacation shutdown period.

RATIONALE: “In the instant case, both Creative Industries and the Union agreed on the designation of the Christmas season holidays. At issue then is whether holiday payment was ever adequately allocated to those holidays, as required by the statute. See General Motors Corp v Unemployment Compensation Comm, 331 Mich 303 (1951) . “In General Motors Corp, supra at 306-310, the Supreme Court held that holiday pay was remuneration in part where the bargaining parties had allocated funds to a specific day – December 25. In the present case, however, there has been no allocation of holiday pay to anyspecific holiday. Rather, the parties have agreed that each employee will receive 4.2 per cent of his straight time in each paycheck to cover all holidays.”

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