Previous PageTable Of ContentsNext Page

Snyder v RAM Broadcasting 16.39

Section 28(1)(a)

PROCEDURE, Notice of hearing, Adequacy of notice

CITE AS: Snyder v RAM Broadcasting, No. 82 23718 AE, Washtenaw Circuit Court (April 26, 1983).

Appeal pending: No

Claimant: Ann M. Snyder

Employer: RAM Broadcasting

Docket No: B81 02050 R01 78066

CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: A Notice of Hearing which did not give a plain statement that claimant's eligibility pursuant to Section 28(1)(a) in regard to seeking work right be raised was not an adequate notice of the issue when it merely used the words "Ability/Availability/Seeking Work/Eligibility" in the Notice and did not specify that it was an issue for consideration at the Referee Hearing.

FACTS: Claimant worked for the employer from May 13, 1980 through August 1, 1980. She resigned and filed for unemployment. The Commission disqualified her pursuant to Section 29(1)(a). The redetermination stated: "Ability/Availability/Seeking Work/Eligibility Sections 28, 42, 46, 48 and 50. Last day of work thru date of hearing." The Referee merely reiterated that language in his Notice of Hearing in claimant's appeal of her disqualification pursuant to Section 29(1)(a). The Referee asked the claimant questions regarding her seeking work efforts and held the claimant ineligible under Section 28(1)(a).

DECISION: Claimant not ineligible for benefits pursuant to Section 28(1)(a) from August 1, 1980 through February 26, 1981 because she was not given adequate notice that her seeking work activities would be a matter for consideration.

RATIONAL: "This 'notice', as quoted alone, is inadequate for two reasons. First, it is not a plain statement of the matters asserted. These words and phrases divided by slashes and followed by a string citation to give sections of the Act do not provide a reasonably understandable notification that an issue will be considered, especially where the notification is intended for a lay person, and most especially where the notice is of an issue which was not addressed below. Second, this phrase, even if understandable, was not listed in the notice of hearing as an issue which would be presented before the referee. Instead, it was set forth as an issue which was included in the January 28, 1981 Redetermination."


10, 15:C

Previous PageTable Of ContentsNext Page