Previous PageTable Of ContentsNext Page

Cox v Tri-County Labor Agency 4.20

Section 48, 62

REMUNERATION, Arbitration settlement, Back pay, Restitution

CITE AS: Cox v Tri-County Labor Agency, No. 85-1861AE, Calhoun Circuit Court (March 13, 1986).

Appeal pending: No

Claimant: Wayne O. Cox

Employer: Tri-County Labor Agency

Docket No: B84 06074 97817W, 97818W

CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: Receipt of a lump sum settlement of an arbitration award constituted back pay and hence remuneration within the meaning of the MES Act.

FACTS: The claimant was employed as an executive director by the employer until his termination. After his termination an arbitrator issued a decision which reinstated the claimant and ordered the employer to pay the claimant back pay. Shortly after the claimant was reinstated the employer again terminated him. At this point the claimant and the employer negotiated an agreement whereby which the employer paid the claimant a sum in satisfaction of the arbitration award. Claimant was paid unemployment benefits while the arbitration was pending. After claimant received the arbitration settlement the MESC sought restitution of the benefits received.

DECISION: The sum received by the claimant in settlement of the arbitration award included back pay. Thus it constituted remuneration within the meaning of the MES Act and therefore claimant was ineligible for benefits during the relevant period. Restitution was properly ordered.

RATIONALE: The arbitration award specifically indicated the employer would both reinstate the claimant and pay him back wages. The back wages payable to the claimant would have been remuneration. The claimant's receipt of a sum in lieu of reinstatement and back wages must also be considered remuneration since it was received in satisfaction of the same.


2, 6, d14:NA

Previous PageTable Of ContentsNext Page