Section 28(1)(c)
AVAILABILITY, Attachment to labor market, Self-employment
CITE AS: High Scope Educational Research Foundation v Easton, No. 78 15844 AE, Washtenaw Circuit Court (September 25, 1979)
Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Nick J. Easton
Employer: High Scope Educational Research Foundation
Docket No: B77 8 55981
CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: Where an unemployed person becomes the proprietor of an antique shop, but remains able and available and continues to seek work, the claimant is still attached to the labor market.
FACTS: The claimant was laid off from full-time employment in June, 1976. While still unemployed, he invested $3,500 and opened an antique shop. The claimant continued to look for employment at numerous places, made arrangements to have someone fill in for him if necessary, and was willing to give up the shop if he found suitable employment.
DECISION: The claimant was genuinely attached to the labor market.
RATIONALE: The Court followed the reasoning adopted by the Michigan Supreme Court in Bolles v ESC, 361 Mich 378; 105 NW2d 192 (1960), and concluded: "In the instant case, Mr. Easton was not 'content to remain idle,' and so opened the antique store. During the period in question, he lost money in all but one week. High Scope attempts to distinguish Bolles on the ground that Mr. Easton had a 'large' inventory (approximately $3,500.00) tied up in the store, and so could not ignore his store obligations, making him effectively unavailable for full-time employment. This court does not agree. The claimants in Bolles also had a substantial investment in their jewelry store. No figure is mentioned, but they did pay for the remodeling and redecoration of the building which they rented and paid for advertising. The Bolles court did not mention the investment by claimant as a factor for consideration."
"There was ample evidence in the instant case that Mr. Easton had made arrangements to cover his shop obligations in the event he found a job. Further, this court does not consider $3,500.00 such a substantial inventory investment to preclude Mr. Easton from accepting a full-time job."
11/90 5, 14, 15:A
Silverstein (Chrysler Corp) 7.20
Section 28(1)(c)
AVAILABILITY, Acceptance of lower wage, Completion of requalification, Excessive wage demand, Inclusion of overtime pay, Length of unemployment, Prior annual earnings, Reduction of expectations, Rule of reason
CITE AS: Silverstein (Chrysler Corp.), 1979 BR 61400 (B78 04755).
Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Myer M. Silverstein
Employer: Chrysler Corp.
Docket No: B78 04755 61400
BOARD OF REVIEW HOLDING: Where an individual's prior employment involved substantial overtime, and the claimant has requalified for benefits after a disqualifying separation, the claimant's availability can no longer be limited to work which would provide at least as much in annual earnings as the preceding job did.
FACTS: "Here, the claimant testified that he was earning approximately $20,000 per year at Chrysler Corporation prior to his retirement. He added that he was available for employment that paid a similar wage (T, p. 13). A review of the record indicates that claimant did earn wages at a weekly rate that would amount to $20,000 annually (Exhibit No. 2). The claimant earned $7.69 per hour, therefore, it appears that he was including over-time pay in his wage total."
DECISION: The claimant is not eligible for benefits subsequent to the requalification period.
RATIONALE: "Surely the claimant here should not be penalized because he initially expected to find employment at a wage comparable to that which he most recently earned. However, in light of the fact that his wage requirements were somewhat inflated due to the inclusion of over-time pay, and the fact that at some point his wage demands became excessive, we must find that he was required to lower his 'sights' after a reasonable period of time. We find that during the period of requalification, it was not unreasonable that the claimant expected to find employment at his previous rate. However, after requalifying and then being qualified to collect unemployment benefits, he was required to 'lower his sights' and accept a lower wage. By applying this 'rule of reason,' the majority of the Board panel is of the opinion that the claimant was given ample time to test the waters of the market and obtain employment at his previous rate during his requalification period."
11/90
5, 7, d3:NA