Breshgold v MESC Digest no. 7.25 Section 28(1)(c) Cite as: Breshgold v MESC, unpublished opinion of the Wayne Circuit Court, issued February 24, 1978 (Docket No. 77-708893-AE). Appeal pending: No Claimant: Michael S. Breshgold Employer: United States Navy Docket no.: UCX75 14953 RO 49887 Date of decision: February 24, 1978 View/download the full decision CIRCUIT COURT… Read More »
Breshgold v MESC Digest no. 7.25 Section 28(1)(c) Cite as: Breshgold v MESC, unpublished opinion of the Wayne Circuit Court, issued February 24, 1978 (Docket No. 77-708893-AE). Appeal pending: No Claimant: Michael S. Breshgold Employer: United States Navy Docket no.: UCX75 14953 RO 49887 Date of decision: February 24, 1978 View/download the full decision CIRCUIT COURT… Read More »
The test of whether a person or business is liable for workers’ compensation benefits as the employer of a claimant is not a matter of terminology, oral or written, but of the realities of the work performed; control of the claimant is a factor, as is payment of wages, hiring and firing, and the responsibility for the maintenance of discipline, but the test of economic reality views these elements as a whole, assigning primacy to no single one.
CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: Where an employer customarily asks its employees to leave on their dates of termination, and pays them “severance pay” determined by each person’s salary and seniority, the additional money is not payment in lieu of notice.
Weideman v Interlakes Engineering Co Digest no. 4.07 Section 48 Cite as: Weideman v Interlakes Engineering Co, unpublished opinion of the Macomb Circuit Court, issued November 28, 1975 (Docket No. 744941 AE). Appeal pending: No Claimant: William Weideman, et al. Employer: Interlakes Engineering Company Docket no.: B73 3107 43951, et al. Date of decision: November 28, 1975 View/download the… Read More »
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.
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.
Giebel v State of Michigan Digest no. 10.29 Section 29(1)(a) Cite as: Giebel v State of Michigan, unpublished opinion of the Midland Circuit Court, issued October 1, 1974 (Docket No. B71 2038 40969). Appeal pending: No Claimant: Richard A. Giebel Employer: State of Michigan Docket no.: B71 2038 40969 Date of decision: October 1, 1974 View/download the… Read More »
COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: The test to determine whether an employee-employer relationship exists for purposes of the Worker’s Compensation Act is the “economic reality test”, and the factors used to apply the test are whether: (1) the employer will incur liability if the relationship terminates at will; (2) the work performed is an integral part of the employer’s business; (3) the employee primarily depends upon the wages for living expenses; (4) the employee furnishes equipment and material; (5) the employee holds himself out to the public as able to perform certain tasks; (6) the work involved is customarily performed by an independent contractor. Along with (7) the factors of control, payment of wages, maintenance of discipline, and the right to engage or discharge employees; and (8) weighing those factors which will most favorably effectuate the purposes of the Act.
Ellison v. MESC Digest No. 12.138 Section 421.29 Cite as: In the matter of the claim of Ellison, unpublished opinion of the MESC, issued June 6, 1972 (Docket No. B71-1229-40927). Appeal pending: No Claimant: Thomas H. Ellison Employer: Michigan Employment Security Commission Docket no.: B71-1229-40927 Date of decision: June 6, 1972 View/download the full decision HOLDING:… Read More »