Previous PageTable Of ContentsNext Page

Anthony v Nottawa Gardens 13.20

Section 29(1)(e)

REFUSAL OF WORK, Suitable work, Pay reduction.

CITE AS: Anthony v Nottawa Gardens, Branch Circuit Court, No. 85-03-160AE (May 6, 1986).

Appeal pending: No

Claimant: David Anthony

Employer: Nottawa Gardens

Docket No. B84-09806-97986W

CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: Where employer had work available and offered claimant re-employment at a lower wage than he previously received to perform the same or similar job, the work offered was suitable and claimant did not have good cause to refuse it.

FACTS: The claimant quit his job with employer to pursue other opportunities. Subsequently, he applied for benefits at which point the employer offered him his position but at a lower rate of pay. The claimant refused the offer because of health and safety concerns and because he was offered $1.00 less per hour than he had previously earned. Claimant further alleged that the offer was a sham and made only for the purpose of avoiding charges to employer's account.

DECISION: Claimant is disqualified for refusing an offer of suitable work without good cause.

RATIONALE: The fact that employer offered re-employment coincidentally to claimant's effort to obtain benefits does not render the offer a "sham" so long as employer actually had work available that claimant could do. Claimant had no right to expect same pay as he received previously because he quit for personal reasons. Claimant had not complained of health and safety conditions prior to quitting so they cannot be raised later to show work offered is unsuitable.


3, 11: N/A

Previous PageTable Of ContentsNext Page