Chapter 3 BENEFIT COMPUTATION FACTORS Sections 27(b)(c)(f), 46, 46a
PENSION OFFSET, Statutory construction, Retroactivity of amendments
CITE AS: Gormley v General Motors Corp., 125 Mich App 781 (1983).
Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Charles M. Gormley
Employer: General Motors Corporation
Docket No: B80 16457 74672
COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: "It is a general rule in Michigan, as well as in other jurisdictions, that all statutes are prospective in their operation except in such cases as the contrary clearly appears from the context of the statute itself."
FACTS: The claimant was receiving a military pension prior to his layoff from General Motors in July, 1980. The statute in effect mandated that the claimant's unemployment benefits be reduced because of the existence of the military pension. At the time of the claimant's appeal, a newly enacted pension offset provision provided for a pension offset only if the pension came from a "base period employer." The claimant contended that the new provision should be applied retroactively.
DECISION: The statute in question is not retroactive.
RATIONALE: Nothing in the language or context of the 1980 amendment to the Federal Employment Tax Act suggests a congressional intent that the amendment was to apply retroactively.
A remedial statute may be applied retroactively. A remedial statute is related to remedies or modes of procedure which do not create new or take away vested rights, but only operate in furtherance of a remedy or confirmation of rights already existing. Kalamazoo Ed Ass'n v Kal Schools, 406 Mich 579, 601.
Prior to the amendment claimant was barred from receiving full unemployment compensation benefits. However, the 1980 amendment allows claimants to receive full unemployment compensation benefits beginning November 1, 1980. The latter amendment creates a new right in claimant and others in claimant's position and cannot be considered as being a remedial statute.