Intertown Corp. v. Appeal Bd. of Mich. Unemployment Compensation Commission, 60
| Decision Date | 11 September 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 60,60 |
| Citation | 43 N.W.2d 888,328 Mich. 363 |
| Parties | INTERTOWN CORPORATION v. APPEAL BOARD OF MICHIGAN UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION COMMISSION et al. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Wurzer, Higgins & Starrs, Detroit (Robert A. MacDonell, Detroit, of counsel), for plaintiff and appellant.
Stephen J. Roth, Attorney General, Edmund E. Shephered, Solicitor General, Lansing, Arthur W. Brown and George M. Bourgon, Assistants Attorney General, for appellee Commission.
Rothe & Marston, Detroit, Seymour Goldman, Detroit, of counsel, for individualnamed appellees.
Before the Entire Bench.
Claimant Margaret Braun was employed as an elevator operator and claimant Walter Roesler as a janitor by plaintiff Intertown Corporation, a Michigan corporation, which owns and operates the David Broderick Tower, an office building in Detroit. A group of the corporation employees desired union recognition and gave a strike ultimatum to plaintiff. An employer witness stated that prior to the strike date the corporation agreed to arrange an election, but that the employees nevertheless went out on strike on October 26, 1948.
Elevator operation was restored within an hour. New employees were hired, and there was no work stoppage in the building after the first week. Claimants received their pay checks the following week with a statement of their total earnings and a letter which they interpreted as a termination of their employment. However, they continued to picket the building until December 14, 1948, when the dispute ended.
Margaret Braun worked in a department store during the Christmas holidays and, when laid off, filed an unemployment claim on January 7, 1949. Walter Roesler worked for the six days before Christmas and filed his claim on January 12, 1949. Neither claimant asked for unemployment benefits between October 26th and December 14th. The commission's redetermination of May 10, 1949, held that claimants were not disqualified under § 29 of the unemployment compensation act, Act No. 1, P.A.1936, Ex. Sess., as amended, C.L.1948, § 421.1 et seq., Stat.Ann.1949 Cum.Supp. § 17.501 et seq.
Plaintiff's appeals were heared before the referee on May 31, 1949. He affirmed the redeterminations on the ground that claimants were not disqualified under § 29(1)(a)(1) or § 29(1)(b) of the act. The appeal board affirmed the findings of the referee, as did the circuit court later on certiorari. Plaintiff has appealed from the circuit court judgment, entered on January 11, 1950.
The disqualifications now alleged by plaintiff under § 29(1)(a)(2) and under the Bonine-Tripp act, Act No. 176, P.A.1939, as amended, C.L.1948, § 423.1 et seq., Stat.Ann.1949 Cum.Supp. § 17.454(1) et seq., were not asserted before the referee or the appeal board. They were included for the first time in the petition for certiorari before the circuit court. That court, while making reference to § 29(1)(a)(2), did not pass on these, but merely affirmed the findings of the referee. The referee and appeal board heard argument only on § 29(1)(a)(1) and § 29(1)(b), the latter no longer being urged.
While the matter here is treated as a general appeal C.L.1948, § 421.38, Stat.Ann § 17.540; Palmer v. Unemployment Compensation Commission, 310 Mich. 702, 18 N.W.2d 83, 158 A.L.R. 909, this Court is limited to a review of the circuit court judgment. Godsol v. Unemployment Compensation Commission, 302 Mich. 652, 5 N.W.2d 519, 142 A.L.R. 910. We do not consider matters neither argued nor passed upon below. The only question, therefore, is whether claimants left work voluntarily without good cause attributable to the employer. C.L.1948, § 421.29(1)(a)(1), Stat.Ann. § 17.531(1)(a)(1).
In maintaining its neutral position in employer-employee relations, the State has established statutory bases of disqualification for unemployment benefits. The disqualifications of subsection (a) are for the duration of unemployment, and this includes the voluntary leaving of work by the employee. The following subsection (b) disqualifies the employee...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Continental Oil Co. v. Board of Labor Appeals
...voluntary separation provisions. T. R. Miller Mill Co. v. Johns, 261 Ala. 615, 75 So.2d 675; Intertown Corp. v. Appeal Board of Mich. Unemployment Comp. Comm., supra, 328 Mich. 363, 43 N.W.2d 888; Little Rock Furniture Mfg. Co. v. Commissioner of Labor, 227 Ark. 288, 298 S.W.2d 56; Marathon......
-
Inter-Island Resorts, Limited v. Akahane
...Board of Review, 165 Pa.Super. 359, 67 A.2d 380; In re Steelman, 219 N.C. 306, 13 S.E.2d 544; Intertown Corp. v. Appeal Board of Mich. Unemployment Comp. Comm., 328 Mich. 363, 43 N.W.2d 888. Of course, courts and administrative agencies may differ as to what constitutes substantial curtailm......
-
Plymouth-Stamping, Div. of Eltec Corp. v. Lipshu
...on Knight-Morley Corp. v. Employment Security Comm., 352 Mich. 331, 89 N.W.2d 541 (1958), and Intertown Corp. v. Unemployment Compensation Comm., 328 Mich. 363, 43 N.W.2d 888 (1950), held that the evidence indicated that the strikers "were terminated at least as of January 15, 1981, when ac......
-
Trapeni v. Department of Employment Sec., 515-81
...voluntary separation provisions. T.R. Miller Mill Co. v. Johns, 261 Ala. 615, 75 So.2d 675; Intertown Corp. v. Appeal Board of Mich. Unemployment Comp. Comm., supra, 328 Mich. 363, 43 N.W.2d 888; Little Rock Furniture Mfg. Co. v. Commissioner of Labor, 227 Ark. 288, 298 S.W.2d 56; Marathon ......