Previous Page Table Of Contents Next Page

Klok v Caretec, Inc 13.23

Section: 29(1)(e)

REFUSAL OF WORK, Suitable work, Statutory construction

CITE AS : Klok v Caretec, Inc., Kalamazoo Circuit Court, No. 93-3161-AE (May 5, 1995).

Appeal pending: No

Claimant: Christina Klok

Employer: Caretec, Inc.

Docket No. B92-01514-121853W

CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: Where claimant was offered a job similar to one she held previously, even though there were some changes in benefits and other conditions of employment, the work offered was suitable and claimant did not establish good cause to refuse it.

FACTS: Claimant's employer was bought by Caretec and claimant was offered a job by the new employer, which she declined. Claimant believed her job would be phased out, that all material terms and conditions of the employment were not disclosed when the offer was made, and that the offer was not suitable because there was no assurance the work would be substantially similar to her former job. There was to be an increase in her premium for health insurance.

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

RATIONALE: Claimant was aware of what her job duties would be even though a job description was not provided at the time of the offer. The work offered must be suitable but under Section 29(6) - it need not be "substantially similar" to former job. Increase in bi-weekly premium for insurance was minor issue since new employer eliminated the deductible. Final clause of Section 29(1)(e) concerning "direction by the commission" refers to self-employment and not to the acceptance of suitable work clause.


19, 17, d22: N/A

Previous Page Table Of Contents Next Page