Previous Page Table Of ContentsNext Page

Chapter 6 ELIGIBILITY - SEEKING WORK Section 28(1)(a)

Haberman v The Stroh Brewery Co 6.01

Section 28(1)(a), 28(1)(c)

SEEKING WORK, Waiver of seeking work, Availability

CITE AS: Haberman v The Stroh Brewery Co, 1981 BR 57623 (B77 3056).

Appeal pending: No

Claimant: Charles Haberman

Employer: The Stroh Brewing Co.

Docket No: B77 3056 57623

BOARD OF REVIEW HOLDING: When a seeking work waiver is in effect the fact that a claimant is not actively seeking work cannot be the basis of an adverse finding under the able and available provision.

FACTS: Following a period of light duty work after an injury, the claimant's employment came to an end because of a mandatory retirement policy. The employer contested claimant's eligibility for benefits under the able and available provisions of the Act. During the course of the hearing it was established claimant had contacted only three possible employers during 10 months of unemployment. A waiver of the seeking work requirement was in effect during the period in question.

DECISION: The claimant was not ineligible for benefits under Section 28 except for a period he admitted he was not attached to the labor market.

RATIONALE: The entire Board cited Hinga v Brown Co., No. 78 3585 (Mich App June 25, 1980) for the principle that a claimant's failure to seek work cannot be used as a criterion of availability when the seeking work requirement has been waived by the Commission. Three Members of the Board went on to say that the principle of Hinga applies even if the claimant does not have actual knowledge of the waiver.


3, 6, 5, 14, 15:NA

Previous Page Table Of ContentsNext Page