Categories
07. Eligibility - Able & Available

Chrysler Corp v Sellers – 7.08

Chrysler Corp v Sellers
Digest no. 7.08

Section 28(1)(c)

Cite as: Chrysler Corp v Sellers, 105 Mich App 715 (1981).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Woodrow W. Sellers
Docket no.: B76 9783 RM 58420
Employer: Chrysler Corporation
Date of decision: April 22, 1981

View/download the full decision

COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: Where a retired auto worker excludes auto plants from his or her active work search, to avoid further exposure to smoke and dust, but seeks other work which the individual has performed, the claimant is available for work and seeking work.

FACTS: “Prior to working at Chrysler, claimant had acquired work experience as a service station attendant and janitor. After retiring, claimant sought work at service stations, hospitals and small shops or factories, but he did not seek employment in an auto factory because of his previous exposure to smoke and dust at such jobs.” He testified to having sought work three or four times each week.

DECISION: “This case is remanded to the Commission for a hearing at which the claimant’s eligibility for benefits, in relation to his pension, will be determined under MCL 421.27(f); MSA 17.529(f).”

RATIONALE: The Court cited McKentry v ESC, 99 Mich App 277 (1980). “According to McKentry, claimant’s failure to actively seek a job like his last one does not constitute a material restriction of his availability under the Act. Just as the claimant in McKentry did not actively seek employment as a teacher’s aide because it aggravated her physical condition, claimant in the instant case did not actively seek work in a large auto factory because he wished to avoid further exposure to smoke. Viewing the evidence as a whole, we do not find the claimant’s failure to apply for auto plant work so significantly impaired his availability for work as to permit reversal.” “Viewing the evidence in its entirety, we find that the Board of Review’s conclusion regarding the claimant’s efforts to secure employment was based upon competent, material and substantial evidence.”

Digest Author: Board of Review (original digest here)
Digest Updated:
6/91

Categories
07. Eligibility - Able & Available

Heikkinen v Ore-Ida Foods, Inc – 7.10

Heikkinen v Ore-Ida Foods, Inc
Digest no. 7.10

Section 28(1)(c)

Cite as: Heikkinen v Ore-Ida Foods, Inc, unpublished opinion of the Michigan Employment Security Board of Review, issued July 31, 1980 (Docket No. B77 18316 58612).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Mabel B. Heikkinen
Employer: Ore-Ida Foods, Inc.
Docket no.: B77 18316 58612
Date of decision: July 31, 1980

View/download the full decision

BOARD OF REVIEW HOLDING: (1) Where a redetermination refers only to Section 28(1)(c) of the Act, the Referee may not rule on Section 28(1)(a). (2) Voluntary retirement is not inconsistent with subsequent attachment to the labor market.

FACTS: The Commission found a voluntary retiree ineligible under Section 28(1)(c) of the Act. The claimant testified she would give up her Social Security benefits, and would travel 30-35 miles, for full time work.

“Further, the claimant’s testimony indicates that she was not able to perform the job to which she was last assigned (T, p. 5), however, she is able to do work where she could sit down part of the time (T, p. 10).”

DECISION: The claimant is able and available for work. The finding on seeking work is vacated.

RATIONALE: “[I]t is noted that the referee states (page 2 of his decision) that ‘(I)t is generally conceded that voluntary retirement … discloses a mental attitude inconsistent with … attachment to the labor market.’ This statement appears to be unsupported by the Act or by authority. McKinney (Chrysler Corp.), 1977 AB 53130 (B76-15034).”

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

Categories
07. Eligibility - Able & Available

Toney v General Motors Corp – 7.13

Toney v General Motors Corp
Digest no. 7.13

Section 28(1)(c)

Cite as: Toney v General Motors Corp, unpublished opinion of the Michigan Employment Security Board of Review, issued December 5, 1979 (No. B77 19640 60610).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Albert Toney
Employer: General Motors Corporation
Docket no.: B77 19640 60610
Date of decision: December 5, 1979

View/download the full decision

BOARD OF REVIEW HOLDING: Where an individual’s principal occupation has been machine operator, and the claimant voluntarily retires and moves to an area in which such work is unavailable, the claimant is not available for work.

FACTS: “The claimant voluntarily retired from his employment as a machine operator with the involved employer on June 30, 1977.” He moved to Titusville, in Brevard County, Florida. “Claimant also testified that the area in Florida to which he relocated did not have any machine shops which offered the type of employment in which claimant had former work experience (T. of March 29, 1978 hearing p. 8).”

DECISION: The claimant does not meet the availability requirements of Section 28(1)(c) of the Act.

RATIONALE: “Claimant retired and moved to Florida. In doing so, he took himself out of a labor market which had substantial employment opportunities for persons in claimant’s job classification (machinist). He moved from an area of high job concentration in his employment classification to an area of low industrialization and few, if any, opportunities for a machinist. From the record, it is obvious that claimant was not genuinely attached to the labor market and not genuinely desirous of finding work which by previous experience he was qualified to perform.”

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

Categories
07. Eligibility - Able & Available

Chrysler Corp v Brown – 7.15

Chrysler Corp v Brown
Digest no. 7.15

Section 28(1)(c)

Cite as: Chrysler Corp v Brown, unpublished opinion of the Wayne Circuit Court, issued September 26, 1979 (Docket No. 79 907 580).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Virgil Brown
Employer: Chrysler Corporation
Docket no.: B77 9002 56154
Date of decision: September 26, 1979

View/download the full decision

CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: Where a claimant whose customary work has been in heavy manufacturing voluntarily retires and limits availability to light janitorial work, the claimant is not attached to the labor market.

FACTS: The claimant voluntarily retired after working 30 years doing “heavy work” in an auto plant. Claimant began seeking light work in a janitorial capacity. He had experience as a janitor prior to employment with Chrysler Corporation.

DECISION: The claimant does not meet the availability requirements of Section 28(1)(c) of the Act.

RATIONALE: “In the present case, Brown unduly restricted his availability to the single job preference of janitorial work. This constituted availability for about 17% of the jobs he was qualified to perform by past experience or training. This does not constitute genuine attachment to the labor market.”

“The fact that Brown had unilaterally determined that he no longer preferred to perform heavy work did not make heavy work legally unsuitable.”

“In summary, there is nothing in the statute nor in case law that permits a claimant to define the labor market for his skills based solely on his subjective preference for a particular job as opposed to his objective qualifications for a labor market.”

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