Chapter 4 TOTAL OR PARTIAL UNEMPLOYMENT Sections 27(c), 44, 48
Section 48
REMUNERATION, Allocation of vacation pay, Circuit court, Judicial review, Jurisdiction, Layoff, Pro-rata vacation allowance
CITE AS: Brown v LTV Aerospace Corp, 394 Mich 702 (1975).
Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Russell W. Brown, et al
Employer: LTV Aerospace Corporation
Docket No: B70 773 38400 et al
SUPREME COURT HOLDING: (1) A pro-rata vacation allowance at the time of layoff is not a termination allowance and may be considered as vacation pay. (2) Where claimants are not numerous enough to require a class action, and their consolidated appeal is filed in a circuit other than Ingham, the appeal must be dismissed as to any claimant not residing in the circuit of filing.
FACTS: At the time of layoff, the claimants were paid a pro-rata share of their annual vacation pay. These payments were held to be remuneration under Section 48 of the Act. The claimants appealed to Macomb Circuit Court, where the appeal was dismissed as to claimant Boyer because he resided in Oakland County.
DECISION: (1) The pro-rata vacation pay was remuneration. (2) Boyer's appeal was properly dismissed.
RATIONALE: (1) Analysis of the union contract " ... indicates that the agreement speaks of vacation pay to an employee regularly employed, of one 'at the time of termination' and one 'terminated for lack of work and subsequently recalled' in exactly the same way. The emphasis is all on guaranteeing vacation pay in accord with credit earned because of time worked. The system is integral and it is no different 'at time of separation' from either regular annual anniversary payments or payments of allowances for those terminated and then recalled."
"The language of the statute is unambiguous, and it is clear that under [Section] 38 Boyer should have filed his appeal in either Oakland Circuit Court, the circuit court of the county in which he resided, or the Ingham Circuit Court.
"Section 38 is a statutory grant of jurisdiction to certain circuit courts; if an appeal is improperly filed in the wrong court, that court has no option but to dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction."
11/90
NA