LEAVING TO ACCEPT, Permanent work, Length of successive employment, Performs services
CITE AS: Ingham County v Joan M. Cole and Story OldsmobileIngham County v Joan M. Cole and Story OldsmobileIngham County v Joan M. Cole and Story Oldsmobile, No. 55295 (Mich App October 1, 1981).
Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Joan M. Cole
Employer: Ingham County & Story Oldsmobile
Docket No: B78 03330 60690
COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: Claimant satisfied the leaving to accept provision of Section 29(5) even though she was on the payroll for 1/2 of a day and did not perform any work tasks. She did observe the work of others at the direction of the employer. Thus she "performed services" under the meaning of Section 29(5).
FACTS: Claimant left a bookkeeping position with Story Oldsmobile to accept a position with Ingham County. Although the position was considered to be temporary until a "posting" process was completed claimant was assured by the county clerk that the position was permanent. Claimant reported to work in the morning and remained until noon. At the direction of the person who hired her the claimant observed others work during that time but did not actually perform any tasks. She concluded the job involved secretarial duties rather than the bookkeeping responsibilities she had expected. She terminated her employment with the county and was paid for the partial day.
DECISION: Claimant is not subject to disqualification under Section 29(1)(a) for leaving Story Oldsmobile because she satisfied the leaving to accept provisions of Section 29(5).
RATIONALE: 1) Permanent nature of the work: Although the county personnel director considered the position to be a temporary one which had to be posted before it became permanent, claimant was led to believe by the person who hired her that she was hired for a permanent position and the posting requirement was only a formality. Under these facts the Board of Review's decision the position was permanent is supported by the record, 2) Performance of services: Claimant observed the work of others but did not actually perform any specific tasks herself. This was done at the direction of the person who hired her. "Since Cole performed tasks at her work place in accordance with the instructions of her employer, we find that she performed services within the meaning of Subsection MCL 421.29(5). This conclusion is bolstered by the fact that the county intended to pay Cole for the time she spent working ... ."
7, 14, 15:E