Mikolaicziak v MESC Digest no. 7.07 Section 28(1)(c) Cite as: Mikolaicziak v MESC, 40 Mich App 61 (1972). Appeal pending: No Claimant: Leo J. Mikolaicziak, et al. Employer: Twin Oaks Golf Club, Inc. Docket no.: B69 573 37067 Date of decision: April 25, 1972 View/download the full decision COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: (1) Unpaid service as a… Read More »
COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: Where various business elements were transferred including some physical assets, disclosure of customers, gain of business from several customers of transferor, there was substantial evidence of a business transfer although the computation of the percentage of the rating account to be transferred was arbitrary.
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT HOLDING: Benefits due a claimant after an initial finding of eligibility may not be held in abeyance pending the employer’s appeal.
COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: The court remanded because the Appeal Board incorrectly applied the “right to control test” rather than the statutory test. Also, the Board failed to make an explicit finding of whether the drivers followed a pattern of operation established by the employer and were controlled by employer in the performance of their work.
COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: When a chain store sells 3 of 126 stores and the purchaser continues to employ 90% of the seller’s former employees, there is a transfer of business, and that part of the seller’s rating account pertaining to the employees of the 3 stores must be transferred, pursuant to Section 22 of the Act, to the purchaser.
COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: “If a vital integral part of the business is not transferred, regardless of how many people make up that integral part, so that the business could not continue, then there has not been a transfer of the `organization’ for the purposes of this Act.”
Echols v MESC Digest no. 10.49 Section 29(1)(a) Cite as: Echols v MESC, 380 Mich 87 (1968). Appeal pending: No Claimant: Bruce Echols Employer: John Kraus, d.b.a. Checker Cab Docket no.: B63 5770 31807 Date of decision: February 9, 1968 View/download the full decision SUPREME COURT HOLDING: “[T]he loss of a claimant’s prerequisites from continued employment,… Read More »
COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: The economic reality test is to be used in unemployment compensation cases dealing with whether a person is an employee or independent contractor.
MESC v Patt Digest no. 2.08 Cite as: MESC v Patt, 4 Mich App 225 (1966). Appeal pending: No Claimant: N/A Employer: Fred Patt Docket no.: N/A Date of decision: September 13, 1966 View/download the full decision COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: The employer’s contributions required under the Michigan Employment Security Act are a tax within the meaning of Section 17… Read More »
Standard Automotive Parts Company v Employment Security Commission Digest No. 12.71 Section 421.29 Cite as: Std Auto Parts Co v Employment Security Comm, 3 Mich App 561; 143 NW2d 135 (1966). Court: Michigan Court of Appeals Appeal pending: No Claimant: Ronnie Romans Employer: Standard Auto Parts Company Date of decision: June 28, 1966 View/download the… Read More »