Hickson v Chrysler Corp
Digest no. 4.02
Cite as: Hickson v Chrysler Corp, 394 Mich 724 (1975).
Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Joseph R. Hickson
Employer: Chrysler Corporation
Docket no.: B70 5047 RO 39184
Date of decision: September 8, 1975
View/download the full decision
SUPREME COURT HOLDING: Where a labor agreement provides for the allocation of vacation pay to a portion of an indefinite layoff period, the payments are remuneration and not severance pay.
FACTS: “Soon after being laid off plaintiff received 28 days vacation pay from his employer in accordance with a Chrysler-UAW contract. The 28 days pay was comprised of:
1) 17-1/2 days vacation credit accrued in 1969 which prior to the layoff plaintiff and his employer had agreed the plaintiff would take between July 6 and July 29 and
2) 10-1/2 vacation days accrued in 1970 up to the time of the layoff which normally would not have been taken until 1971.”
DECISION: The claimant’s vacation pay constitutes remuneration under Section 48 of the Act.
RATIONALE: “In this case there can be no question that the Chrysler/UAW contract provided for the designation of the period for allocation of vacation pay.”
“Receipt of ‘termination, separation, severance, or dismissal allowances, and bonuses’ suggests payment independent of and perhaps in addition to vacation payments. The payments in question were clearly ‘for a vacation or a holiday.'”
Digest Author: Board of Review (original digest here)
Digest Updated: 11/90