Previous PageTable Of ContentsNext Page

Breshgold v MESC 7.25

Section 28(1)(c)

AVAILABILITY, College student

CITE AS: Breshgold v MESC, No. 77-708893-AE, Wayne Circuit Court (February 24, 1978).

Appeal pending: No

Claimant: Michael S. Breshgold

Employer: U S Navy

Docket No: UCX75 14953 RO 49887

CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: In order to be eligible for unemployment benefits, an individual must be unemployed and make reasonable efforts to find work. An individual need not be idle and is not required to look for work daily for 8 hours a day.

FACTS: Claimant was enrolled as a full time student, taking daytime college courses (17 credits). He asserted he was available for full time work and would rearrange his class schedule or quit school if he found full-time employment. He testified that he had worked full-time and attended school full-time in the past. The Referee found, and the Board of Review majority agreed, that claimant was primarily a student and was not genuinely attached to the labor market because he only searched for employment when this did not interfere with his schooling.

DECISION: Remand for hearing on claimant's job seeking efforts.

RATIONALE: Where a claimant asserts he is actively seeking work, it is incumbent on the trier of fact to explore those job seeking efforts. Availability cannot be determined solely by the fact that a claimant is pursuing educational goals while unemployed. Attachment to the labor market is largely a function of the individual's efforts to obtain employment.


Section 28(1)(c)

AVAILABILITY, Union work only, Suitability

CITE AS: Spohn v Appeal Board, 342 Mich 432 (1955).

Appeal pending: No

Claimant: James N. Spohn

Employer: J.A. Utley Co

Docket No: B53 1530 15235

SUPREME COURT HOLDING: Claimant is able and available to perform full time work if the non-union work he rejects would entail the acceptance of substandard wages and conditions.

FACTS: After being laid off, claimant only applied for work at his union hall and the employment security office. Employer's position was that claimant restricted his availability and was ineligible. There was non-union work advertised. Claimant did not apply if job was non-union. Claimant's business agent told him he could not take non-union work. The advertisements referred to by the employer required several carpenters to bid on a job and assume the risk that they would earn substandard rates. Claimant's previous employment had been for fixed wages.

DECISION: Eligibility affirmed.

RATIONALE: The issue was not claimant's refusal to accept non-union work, but the suitability of the work offered in the ads. The type of commission work offered was unsuitable i.e. "the remuneration ... or other conditions ... are substantially less favorable to the individual than those prevailing for similar work in the locality."



Previous PageTable Of ContentsNext Page