Van Wormer Industries v MESC Digest no. 4.03 Section 48 Cite as: Van Wormer Industries v MESC, unpublished opinion of the Macomb Circuit Court, issued February 28, 1985 (Docket No. 84-2768 AE). Appeal pending: No Claimant: Jerry L. McCullough Employer: Van Wormer Industries Docket no.: B83 21674 96043W Date of decision: February 28, 1985 View/download the full decision… Read More »
CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: Payments made to claimant after his separation and after he stopped performing services were severance pay, in light of the fact both parties characterized them as such and claimant had no right to payment in lieu of notice.
Golden v Huron Valley Schools Digest no. 4.23 Section 48 Cite as: Golden v Huron Valley Schools, unpublished opinion of the Oakland Circuit Court, issued April 25, 1984 (Docket No. 83-258818-AE). Appeal pending: No Claimant: William P. Golden Employer: Huron Valley Schools Docket no.: B82 03503 R01 85873W Date of decision: April 25, 1984 View/download the full decision CIRCUIT… Read More »
Tenneco Inc v MESC Digest no. 4.14 Section 48 Cite as: Tenneco Inc v MESC, unpublished opinion of the Jackson Circuit Court, issued December 30, 1983 (Docket No. 82-29572 AE). Appeal pending: No Claimant: John J. Brieger Employer: Tenneco, Inc. – Walker Mfg. Docket no.: B80 23129 RO1 76344 Date of decision: December 30, 1983 View/download the full… Read More »
BOARD OF REVIEW HOLDING: Where the claimant has no contractual entitlement to notice, any money paid by the employer upon termination is in the nature of a gift and therefore severance pay, which cannot be considered remuneration for purposes of Section 48.
Miko v Wyandotte Cement, Inc Digest no. 4.11 Section 48 Cite as: Miko v Wyandotte Cement, Inc, unpublished opinion of the Wayne Circuit Court, issued February 8, 1983 (Docket No. 82-233794-AE). Appeal pending: No Claimant: David Miko Employer: Wyandotte Cement, Inc. Docket no.: B81 07873 78457 Date of decision: February 8, 1983 View/download the full decision CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING:… Read More »
CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: Where “the employer complies substantially with the requirements contained in Commission Administrative Rule 302, the purpose of the notice is accomplished.”
MESC v Peterson Digest no. 4.16 Section 48 Cite as: MESC v Peterson, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals of Michigan, issued September 29, 1982 (Docket No. B78 53074 65751). Appeal pending: No Claimant: Doris C. Peterson Employer: Eastern Michigan University Docket no.: B78 53074 65751 Date of decision: September 29, 1982 View/download the full decision COURT… Read More »
CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: Where a contract requires payment of vacation pay in March of each year, and allows designation of a vacation shutdown period, the March payment is not remuneration.
General Foods Corp v Nelson Digest no. 4.12 Sections 27(c), 48 Cite as: General Foods Corp v Nelson, unpublished opinion of the Calhoun County Circuit Court, issued June 18, 1980 (Docket No. B78 716 60234). Appeal pending: No Claimant: Nella L. Nelson Employer: General Foods Corporation Docket no.: B78 716 60234 Date of decision: June 18,… Read More »