*1
398 Mich BINGHAM v AMERICAN SCREW PRODUCTS COMPANY
(Calendar
10).
Argued
Docket No. 56535.
October
No.
De-
cided December
1976.
unemployment compensation against
Arlie K.
claimed
Company,
Employment
American Screw Products
and the
Se-
curity
compensation.
plaintiff
Commission awarded
The
employed by
Company
the defendant American Screw Products
quit
job
for nine months in 1969 until he
and returned to
Kentucky
his home in
because he had been unable to find
adequate housing
family
for his
in the Detroit area. The
plaintiff
job
refused
return to his old
and the MESC
plaintiff
up
found that
Kentucky
had taken
residence in
and had
cause to refuse the
offer in
because
distance
available work from his residence. The
Court,
Beer, J.,
Oakland Circuit
William John
reversed the
Appeals,
Valkenburg,
award. The Court of
J. H. Gillis and Van
(Bronson,
J., dissenting),
JJ.
P.
affirmed the circuit court
18667).
(Docket
Michigan Employment Security
No.
Defendant
appeals.
Commission
Held:
requirement
1.
that a claimant for
com-
pensation
eligible
to be
for benefits be
and
"able
available” for
"seeking
genuinely
work” means that he must be
market, i.e.,
attached
the labor
he must be desirous to obtain
employment,
willing
ready
and must be
to work. There is
requirement
however,
no
in the
that the claimant shall be
[2-4, 6,
[7]
[9]
[8]
[5]
[3]
[2,
[1]
Unemployment compensation
25 Am Jur
76 Am Jur
76 Am Jur
76 Am Jur
76 Am Jur
76 Am Jur
er’s removal from
or nature of excuse for
to social
6]
9]
Circumstances of
Am
security
2d, Unemployment Compensation
2d, Unemployment Compensation
2d,
2d, Unemployment Compensation
2d, Unemployment Compensation
2d, Unemployment Compensation
Jur
References
Domicil § 4.
2d, Unemployment Compensation
or
place
compensation.
unemployment leaving employment,
refusing re-employment
for Points in Headnotes
employment.
as affected
by employee’s
13 ALR2d 874.
§§
6.§
8.§
68.§
§ 63.
availability
68-80.
as
70.§
affecting right
ALR
or
employ-
work,
Am Screw
place,
any particular
such
available for work at
wage
where he last
or
worked
credits
in which he earned his
has moved from one
that a claimant
mere fact
resided. The
*2
holding
basis for
him
create a
does not
to another
unavailable for work.
refusing
disqualified for
an offer of work
2. A claimant is not
Bing-
from his residence.
distance
which is an unreasonable
permanent
or
home where he
his settled
ham’s "residence” was
work, Farming-
locality of the offer of
intends to remain.
ton,
clearly
Michigan,
distance from his
unreasonable
was
an
made, Pineville, Kentucky.
the offer was
residence at the time
unemployment compen-
requalified
for
3. Claimant
period
disqualification
serving
of
under
sation benefits after
seeking
for work
and able
available
the act and was
work
disqualified
was
for
his home. He
not
within the environs of
employer’s job
refusing
because the
was
offer
his former
rejected by
therefore was
work” and
not an offer of "suitable
job
"good
because the
was too far
cause”
the claimant with
his
distant from residence.
Lindemer,
Fitzgerald, joined by
concurred
Justice
Justice
Supreme
reversing
Appeals because the
Court
the Court of
written,
wrote
apply
it is
but
must
the statute as
contrary
policies
one
the most basic
result
statute,
encourage employers
provide
stable
which is to
employment,
to those who
and further reduces funds available
extending
persons
unemployed by
involuntarily
benefits to
are
voluntarily
regular employment
state
leave
who
become nonresidents.
Employment
Com-
Reversed and the decision of
mission reinstated.
Employment
to the
Secu-
Justice Coleman voted to remand
plaintiff
rity
whether the
was
Commission for a determination
29(l)(d)
29(l)(e)
unemployment
disqualified
under
support
compensation
finding
and a
of facts in
analysis
required
the subsec-
A different
conclusion.
* *
*
good
report
for
inter-
tions: "failed without
cause to
view”,
accept
cause to
suitable
and "failed without
offered”, respectively.
when
57 Mich Court Unemployment Compensation for Benefits— 1. Qualification — Residence. compensation disqualified who is A claimant 398 voluntarily employment for terminated his benefits because he Michigan may requalify for after the statutory requalification although he resides outside the state (MCL during requalification period 421.29[3]; and after the 17.531[3]). MSA Unemployment Compensation —Suitable Wokk —Failure to Re- port —Good Cause —Residence. unemployment compensation, A claimant for a worker from Kentucky job Michigan who because he left could not find adequate family afford, housing price his at he could Kentucky, registered appropriate returned to for work with the there, еmployment diligently sought office and made him- work, job self available for suitable but turned down a offer in Michigan employer from his former because of the residence, Kentucky distance from benefits, work”, because the offer was not an offer of "suitable cause”, rejected by "good and therefore was the claimant with (MCL because the was too far distant from his residence 421.29[1]; 17.531[1]). MSA *3 Unemployment Compensation Seeking 3. —Available for Work — Work —Words and Phrases. requirement unemployment compensa- The that a claimant for eligible tion to be for benefits be "able and available” to work "seeking genuinely and work” he means that must be attached market, i.e., to obtaining the labor he must be desirous (MCL employment, willing ready and must and to work 421.28[1],421.29[1]; 17.530[1],17.531[1]). MSA Unemployment Compensation 4. —Available Qualifi- Work — cation for Benefits. requirement There unemployment compensation is no in the act that a any particular claimant shall be available for place; the mere fact that a claimant has moved from one holding to another does not a create basis for him (MCL 421.28[1]; benefits as unavailable for work 17.530[1]). MSA 5. Words and Phrases —Residence of Claimant. place abode; resides; Residence means the where one a dwell- ing habitation; especially, permanent or a settled or home domicile; up residence is made of fact and there intention: must abode, remaining, be the fact and the intention of and the suggest place definitions also that a residence is one and not several. Am Screw Unemployment Compensation Work —Residence —Suitable
6. Claimant. "residence”, definition "suitable work” word as used given compensation plain to be is its in the place ordinary meaning; in which the claim- it means the made, job offer and does not mean ant resides at the time a places when he where resided earned his both that and (MCL 17.531[6]). 421.29[6];MSA base credit weeks
Concurring Fitzgerald Lindemer, JJ. Policy Employ- Unemployment Compensation
7. —Stable —Public ment —Nonresident Claimants. Employment underlying policies Secu- One of the most basic encourage employers provide employ- rity to to stable Act is persons ment; voluntarily who leave extend to employment regular does in this state to become nonresidents encourage employment practices, and it further stable involuntarily unem- to those who are reduces funds available 17.502). (MCL 421.2; ployed MSA Policy. Unemployment Compensation 8. —Statutes—Public Supreme proper It Court amend is not the function disqualifica- Employment Security Act to broaden or extend fixed, Legislature, though plain language, even tions may particular provision seem not to be consonant with policy act. basic Separate Opinion Coleman, J. Unemployment Compensation A Failure sation fied and offered” 17.531[1][ej). different "failed "failed without for act to determine whether without analysis (MCL 421.29[1][d], 421.29[1][ej; MSA 17.531[l][dJ unemployment Report good —Failure required cause cause to *4 compensation — Qualification under the report Accept accept [*] * unemployment compen- Work. benefits because suitable work [*] for Benefits— has been for an interview” disquali- when Ameri- Goodenough, May Smith & for defendant Company. can Screw 398 Opinion op the Court General, Frank J. Kelley, Robert A. Attorney Derengoski, General, George M. and Solicitor Blaty, Assistant General, fоr Attorney defendant Michigan Commission. Security Employment Union,
Amicus Curiae: The International United Automobile, Aerospace Agricultural and Imple- (UAW) ment John A. Workers of America Fillion, Rossen, Jordan Counsel, General Associate Whitman, and M. J. Counsel, General Assistant (Edwin Fabré, G. General Leonard R. Counsel Page, Weiss, Marley Trebilcock, S. and Anne M. counsel). Counsel, Assistants General J. This complex unemployment Williams, com- pensation interpretation case involves the of inter- benefits”) provisions related of 28 ("eligibility benefits”) from ("disqualification Michigan Employment Security Act. There are (1) claimant, two issues: whether disqualified un- der the act for voluntarily terminating his employ- ment, can requalify for benefits under the act outside the State of Michigan; whether claim- ant, after he to Kentucky, moved home was dis- qualified receiving from refusing employer’s offer of his former or whether claimant’s rejection of this offer reemployment "good was with cause” because the offer was not "suitable work” due to the unreasona- ble distance between his Kentucky residence and job offer. outset,
At it is essential we bear in mind unemplоyment our compensation act part of a Federal-state compensation system. This system Federal-state grounded Act, the Federal Social Wagner- Act, Peyser Unemployment Federal Tax Act, together with state laws in conform- enacted *5 Am Screw the Court of
ity these forth Federal set with the standards implemented by system Federal-state laws. The employers of a state the Federal tax offset a unemployment compensa- provided state’s that the Federal standards. law to minimum tion conforms legislature every Furthermore, state has included compensation provi- unemployment law its state (in responsible authorizing executive the sions Michigan, Employment MESC) into interstate to enter Commission— essentially agreements. agreements are de- These qualify- signed who earned claimants to deal with upon being sepa- ing wages who in one state but employment their residence to moved rated from at time of claimants who another state and employment separation from had accumu- their eligible wage to make them lated credits sufficient state. Inherent for in more than one reсognition every agreements state these is the legislature unem- of the Federal dimension mobility ployment essential labor laws enterprise system. operation private of our to the support spirit act these Both and letter of our aspects of Federal and interstate compensation. plain language
Accordingly,
because of the
as the aforesaid state-Federal
our act as well
implications,
Bingham,
hold
a
we
that claimant
Michigan job
Kentucky
a
because
worker who left
adequate housing
family
find
for his
he could not
Kentucky,
price
afford,
he could
returned
at
appropriate employ-
registered
work with the
sought
diligently
there,
him-
and made
ment office
work,
for suitable
turned down
self available
but
Michigan employer
due
from his former
offer
(1)
Kentucky residence,
from his
distance
serving
requalified
for benefits after
We reinstate the administrative determination Michigan Employment Security the Commis- sion, and reverse the trial court Court of Appeals.
I— Facts Bingham employed by Claimant K. Arlie was Company American Screw Products from Febru- ary 17, 17, 1969 to 1969. He November worked as operator; wage-rate a machine his last was $3.10. per hour.
Bingham Michigan testified that he left his em- ployment because he had been unable to find adequate housing for his wife and four children in Michigan price Bing- at a which he could afford. explained employed ham Michigan that while he was continuously
he had searched for a home in which his wife and four children could live. His family Michigan came to and lived with him for approximately living quarters month; one but the inadequate. were adequate family Because he was unable to find quarters
living means, within his his Kentucky, Pineville, was forced to return to original family his home. After his returned to Kentucky, Bingham made further efforts to find adequate living quarters, proved but his efforts thereupon Michigan employ- futile. He severed his returning ment, Kentucky, join Pineville, family. 2, 1969,
On December filed inter- Am Screw Opinion of the Court with claim for state Divisiоn of Kentucky Employ Commonwealth Middlesboro, Kentucky. On Febru Service in ment 20, Employment Security Michigan 1970 the ary (1) holding issued determination Commission employment was "a from separation claimant’s cause attributable voluntary leaving without 29(l)(a) of employer” (2) Act; claimant was Employment 29(1)(a) of the act for thereby disqualified under § 22, 1969 and was ending week November period under subject 6-week requalification 29(3), com period having been requalification claimant’s ben pleted January pro weeks as efit entitlement reduced by weeks). 29(4) (from 2'6 to 20 vided act employer protested the On March *7 excep no employer MESC took determination. Bingham’s separa finding tion to MESC’s the * ** cause "voluntary was without tion 29(1)(a) of the under employer” attributable to However, that on employer act. the stated the 9, to to notice sent March had been his not later than report regular on work 16, Bingham, living at time March the work of its Kentucky, refused offer of because home. distance from his 3, 1970, April the MESC issued a redetermi- On 20, February of affirming its determination nation held: 1970. The MESC reporting good cause for not established "[C]lаimant subject report and is on 3/12/70
when recalled provisions subsection disqualification 29(l)(a) of the act. seeking transportation has a car "Claimant Middlesboro, Ky., radius of 50 miles of within a performed generally to work he work is similar where 398 Mich Opinion of the Court Michigan placing any is not available. He restric- availability tions on wages. his for work to hours or seeking Kentucky is actively He work and the agency securing employment stated that his chances of fair. are completed requalification requirements
"Claimant of the Michigan separation. act based on He fully meets eligibility requirements Michigan act and is held eligible for benefits.” by Michigan This redetermination was affirmed Employment Security Commission Referee on Oc- Michigan 14, 24, tober 1970. On March Employment Security Appeal Commission Board also redetermination. affirmed the August 20, 1973,
On the circuit court reversed appeal (1) board decision. The court held that prohibited Bingham requalifying the act unemployment from residing benefits while outside the (2) Michigan; required State of have been available for work within the commu nity employment where he lived when his relation (in ship Michigan) was severed this case in order eligibility requirements to have met 28(1)(c) 421.28; 17.530; MCLA MSA ineligible thus claimant was to receive accept employer’s because he refused to Michi gan job although living Kentucky he was at the time the offer was made. Appeals opinion, On November the Court part
affirmed
of the circuit court’s
which held "suitable” the
made to
offer work
*8
Bingham
living
while he was
in Ken-
(1974).
tucky.
App 57 Mich
The MESC granted leave on This Court Appeals decision. 6, February Requalified for Benefits While
II — Claimant Michigan the State of Outside issue, the by raised trial properly1 The first required to was reside in the The circuit court held requalify the for benefits under act. On rule on State of appeal, this issue "Since defendant redetermination in order unnecessary Appeals that it was the Court of held appealed 15-day period specified sought company nor neither question the on that within 17.534(1), by 421.32a; question properly not MSA the was MCLA 21, 25. The basis of the court’s the circuit before decision was 20, court.” protest February employer the not file its did 15-day period prescribed by 32a within the 1970 determination part: provided pertinent of the act. Section 32a upon party application an interested filed "The commission shall mailing days personal or within after the with the commission determination, may upon its own motion of a or service notice any period, and thereafter issue within said redetermination review determination prior affirming, modifying reversing or determi- ”* * * 421.32a; stating MSA the reasons therefor. MCLA nation and 17.534(1). employer MESC contend the court’s decision Both the agree. We A review of the record to rule on this issue was reveals that tion on error. 20, employer protested February 1970 determina- 9, 20, February day after 1970 was March 1970. The fifteenth 7, 15-day period Saturday, day March 1970.-Because the last appeal automatically Saturday, filing the time for awas 9, 1970, pursuant Monday, 49 of the March to § extended part: pertinent provided in which day 15-day period, provided last "Whenever 32a, Sunday, legal Saturday, 34 and on a falls sections holiday, day 15-day until of the next shall run the end such *9 556 398 Mich Opinion of Court requalifica- court, is satisfied whether 29(3) requirements § tion of while outside the State Michigan. 29(3) Section stated: "(3) disqualified An is individual who under subsection * * *
29 complete requalifying shall weeks * * * * * * for each of which he "(b) requirements would otherwise meet all waiting period this act to receive a credit or a benefit payment 29(1) if disqualified under were subsection * * * ”3 17.531(3). 421.29(3); MCLA MSA requalify
In words, other a claimant can by being eligible for benefits under the act during ing requalification period. the 6-week This be- question determining case, the relevant Bingham eligible the above stated issue is: was during period benefits under the act the 6-week beginning ending 22, 1969, week November terminating January 10, 1970, while Pine- ” * ** Saturday, Sunday, holiday. legal which is MCLA a neither nor 17.553(1). 421.49; MSA applied, When 49 employer’s § of the act is it is clear that the timely 20, protest February 1970 determination was on filed Appeals March not 1970. we Therefore find that the Court of erred ruling upon requalification issue and this issue properly before us. 2Bingham 29(1)(a) disqualified having § under of the act for left "voluntarily his work without cause to attributable the em ployer”. requalification requirement In addition to the 6-week 29(3), disqualification Bingham’s aas result of his § benefits were 29(4), 421.29(4); reduced 6 weeks from 26 to 20 weeks. See § MCLA 17.531(4). MSA disqualification prescribed 29(3), legislative The determination, persons respect was extended from 6 weeks with to 29(1)(a) 110, the act in 1975 eff PA June may requalify receiving A earning also for benefits or (§ [a]) receiving waiting $25 remuneration in excess of credit disqualifying or 29[3] week payment subsequent or benefit based on credit the not weeks discharge (§ [c]). act These 29[3] alternatives are pertinent to the facts of this case. Screw Products Am op the Court question ville, answer Kentucky? (§ 28[1]): provided The act clearly yes. eligible to re- shall unemployed "An individual any only week if the respect benefits with
ceive *10 finds that: commission "(a) and thereafter has registered work at for He has office in accord- employment report
continued to
at
may
as the commission
regulations
ance with such
* * *
seeking work
prescribe and is
"(c)
perform
to
full-time
available
He is able and
perform by
qualified
a character which
work of
gener-
training, and of a character
past experience or
previously re-
which he has
ally
to work for
similar
work, full
for such
wages, and he is available
ceived
time,
wages for
locality at which he earned
either at a
or at a
during his base
insured work
that such work is
by
it
found
the commission
where
17.530(1).
421.28(1); MSA
available.” MCLA
work,
pursuant
for
Bingham registered
28(1)(a),
Kentucky
Employ
with the
Division
Middlesboro, Kentucky.
ment
Service
"employment
defines
office”
Section
of the act
or
employment
office
branch
public
as "a free
as
any
this state other state
operated by
thereof
em
public
part
system
of a state-controlled
(em
421.43; MSA 17.547
ployment offices” MCLA
added).
was
Bingham’s
registration
Thus
phasis
"regis
and
accord with the
wholly satisfactory
29(1)(a).
requirеment
work”
tration for
addition,
work”
"seeking
In
as
(§
and available”
[a])
"able
28[1]
Em-
Court,
Bolles
the act. This
required by
Commission,
378, 385;
Mich
ployment
(1960), declared:
105 NW2d
(for
requirement
purpose
is the
of the
"Such
398 Mich Opinion op the Court
benefits)
eligibility to
that a claimant be 'able and
work,
register
work,
available’ that he
and seek
* * *
work.
genuine
These
are indicia of
attachment
the labor market.”
In Dwyer v Unemployment Compensation Com-
mission,
188-189;
ing work” and locality in the doing so where though he was (i.e., Michigan). weeks earned his base credit 28(1)(c) must that a claimant be requires Section time, etc., work, "either at a full for available for wages earned insured at which he locality locality or at a where his during work base such work is is found the commission it provides two the statute its face available”. On a claimant may in which localities alternative (1) where he earned base work: available for (in case, Michigan); where the credit weeks work available for the finds suitable commission claimant. written into obviously
The second alternative the situation where a for provide the statute in other registers base credit he earned his than that in which (i.e. genuinely seeks available weeks and market), as is a himself to the labor attaches 28(l)(a) read statutory right claimant’s course, supra. the "new Of conjunction with § work, registers a claimant which locality” work, and available” for work and is "able seeks can be finds work available the commission where in another state. any part either supra. This 28(l)(а) See discussion courts in full accord with other state conclusion test we adopted "availability” who have Court of Penn- Dwyer. Superior As the adopted Unemployment in Sturdevant declared sylvania Case, 548, 560-561; 45 Compensation Super 158 Pa (1946): 898, 905 A2d *12 section, nor requirement quoted in the no "There is available that a claimant shall be in the
elsewhere
in
place,
locality
such as
any
in
for work
particular
he last
wage credits or where
he earned
which
560
Mich 546
398
Opinion of the Court
that a
worked or resided. The mere fact
claimant has
moved from one
to another does not create a
holding
regis-
for
for work.
basis
him unavailable
If he
ters
conditions
locality,
for work in
new
labor-market
opportunities
there
reasonable
afford
work, he is available for work.”
See,
Employment Security Commis-
accord,
in
Kosic,
sion v
455;
App
Ariz
while
in a state other than
has never been decided
Appeals,
Murphy,
our Court. The Court of
in Roman Cleanser Co v
155;
(1970), did, however,
1976] Am Screw Products v Court of the Disqualified III — Claimant Was Not Prom Receiving Benefits Under Act the second, in this case is issue whether central reaching that a claimant In in Roman Cleanser could its conclusion 29(3) residing requalify while under for benefits outside state, Employment Security Appeals on Merren Court of relied (1968): Commission, 380 Mich 156 NW2d Commission, App Employment "In Mich Merren v court, (1966), equally by divided NW2d affirmed [142 240, employment employee voluntarily who left his Court held that an Michigan employer and took work with a with an out-of- by employer, was then laid off em- state ployer, who out-of-state any part or use of of the was not entitled to reinstatement working Michigan acquired for the credit weeks he had ployer. while em- by employee’s cancelled virtue Those credit weeks were voluntary quitting. in Merren was that: Our rationale " ' penalize Siegler grant "To Merren’s claim Lear [would be] [the Michigan employer], pay Merren who would then from own its’ 'employer’.” any from another account without contribution "Likewise, Murphy’s present in case that were we to hold work Kentucky requalified under the act in him for benefits we would Murphy by requiring pay penalize its Roman it to from account own any employer. from another This we refuse to without contribution do. in It controls “We adhere to our decision Merren. this case. The determining Murphy’s commission erred as a matter of law in employer requalified him with an for benefits out-of-state chargeable Michigan employer. of his former to the account We disqualified Murphy under the act.” 29 Mich conclude that stands disagree reasoning by We with this and conclusion reached Appeals The court fails to mention that Court in Merren this Court was Roman Cleanser. presented altogether with a statute differ 29(3). 29(1)(a)(1) ent substance from Section which was 281) (1955 Merren, provided: PA statute at issue "(1) disqualified An individual shall be for benefits: "(a) his in all cases where the For the duration of good voluntarily without cause individual has: Left his work * * * employer employing unit . attributable to the further, however, That if an individual leaves his work "Provided employer voluntarily without cause attributable to the for the purpose accepting permanent full-time work with another em- if, during following separation ployer, and the 39 weeks his he is laid by employer, enough of his credit weeks off for lack of work his new separating employer voluntarily whom he left shall be with his reinstated so that him from all the total number of of benefits available to weeks employers lay will not be less at the time of such off * * * by separating employer .” if been laid off the said than he had Merren, voluntarily Michigan employer and the claimant left his In employer. then laid off to work in Florida for a Florida He was went 398 Mich Opinion of the Court (having requalified benefits under [b]) was act because § 29[3] by employer his Florida and filed a claim for benefits under the MESA, asking for part reinstatement or use of a of his previously credit weeks which were voluntary cancelled termi employment Michigan. nation of Appeals accurately The Court of perceived disqualified employment claimant, being having the issue in Merren as whethеr been *14 voluntarily terminating under Michigan the act for his any part was entitled to reinstatement or use of of the acquired working "credit weeks” Michigan he had while for his employer, disqualification. which were cancelled as an incident of his 383, 385, 3See Mich 386. Claimant contended that he should not 29(1)(aX1) disqualified have Both proviso been supra. under of then § Appeals recognized the Court of and this Court that the merit of meaning claimant’s as used in accepting permanent "employer” contention turned on the of the word portion proviso purpose of the which states: "for the This, employer”. full-time work with another Court then looked to the interaction of 40 and Section 40 of the act defined § § 41 of the act. "employing unit” as follows: " * * * 'Employing any corporation, unit’ means whether domestic * * * foreign, subsequent act, or in its amendatory which has to had employ performing 1 or more individuals services for it within ” * * * added.) (Emphasis this state. "employer” Section 41 of the act definéd as follows: " * * * 'Employer’ means "(b) Any employing unit which in each of 20 different weeks within * * * year any succeeding the calendar year 1956 or within calendar * * * employment has or had in 4 or more individuals .” 29(1)(a)(1) provision We held that the reinstatement of § of the conjunction read in with 40 and § § mandated the conclusion that provision applied only the reinstatement voluntarily when a claimant Michigan employer accept left a employer Michigan Michigan to work with another subsequently and was laid off from the last employer. But by particular this conclusion was necessitated statutory language proviso §29(1)(a)(1). of the found in Section 29(1)(a)(1)required separating employer that both the and the new employer Michigan employers because the MESC could not add (under credit weeks Michigan employer) earned in (under credit weeks earned in employer). Florida the Florida In Merren, legislative jurisdiction the MESC had no over the Florida therefore, employer; chargeable pay the MESC could not benefits to a claimant employer. 29(1)(a)(1), Clearly, to the Florida under § "[T]o grant gan employer], without penalize Merren’s claim Siegler [would Lear be] Michi [the pay who would then Merren from its own account ” any 'employer.’ contribution from another case, But in the provisions instant no such restrictive exist in 29(3). "requalification” 29(3) requirement The has no ad- upon non-Michigan employers. verse effect altogether Because Merren deals with issues, holding different substantive its does not affect the question of requalify whether a claimant can outside the State of Michigan. Bingham Am Screw op the Court Screw Works American refused an offer
he job. former 29(1) states that individ- the act Section "[a]n in all cases in for benefits shall be ual * * * (e) without Has failed cause which * * * him offered ”. suitable work when accept 29(6) "suitable work” as of the act defines Section follows: any work is determining "In whether or suitable * * * individual, shall consider an the commission from his residence.”
the distance of the available 17.531(6). 421.29(6); MCLA MSA offer of reemploy- Screw Works’ Was American offer of "suitable work” ment 29(6)? legal answer meaning within the of § meaning of the word "resi- statutory turns on the i.e. 29(6), "good did have dence” unreason- of the cause” to refuse the because reemploy- able distance between *15 ment offer and his "residence”? defined in the act. is not
The word "residence” term, dеfinition of a statutory of a In absence construction, that words of a accepted rule of "it is an plain ordinary mean- given their and are to be statute ing, legislature, not presumed that it is to be otherwise, 22 Calla- so intended.” having indicated 121, Jurisprudence, p 479. ghan’s Civil v Department Gravel Co Rapids See Grand 53 677, 681-682; 166 NW2d Treasury, 14 Mich (1968). sense, mean- "plain ordinary”
The common person’s "residence” is clear: a the word ing of actually lives. person where that "residence” Pineville, jobA Kentucky. lived in 398 Opinion of the Court in Farmington, an Michigan is unreasonable dis- Pineville, tance from Kentucky and therefore not 29(6). "suitable work” under Accordingly, Bing- ham should refusing not be such a job offer.
The legal to the meaning answer "residence” substantiates the common sense answer. In Wright v Genesee Judge, Circuit 245; 117 Mich (1898), NW this Court defined the ordinary meaning of "residence” as follows: place "Residence means the resides; where one abode; dwelling habitation; especially,- a settled or permanent home or domicile. up Residence made fact and abode, intention. There must be the fact of Heron, remaining. intention of Estate of 6 Phila 1865).” (Register’s Ct, Estate, In re Scheyer’s
In
336 Mich
651-
(1953),
than 1 one cannot intend to remain for an ” extended of time in place. more than (Empha- added.) sis
Applying this definition to case, the facts of this it is clear that Bingham’s "residence”, his "settled *16 home,” or permanent where he "intends to re- main”, Pineville, Therefore, Kentucky. Am Screw Products v the of Court 29(l)(e) 29(6), Bingham with in conjunction read §
§ American refusing Screw not was his refusal was offer because reemployment Works’ not an cause”; offer was offer of "good the with locality the of the reem- because "suitable work” Michigan) was (Farmingtоn, clearly ployment Pineville, from his Ken- distance an unreasonable the claimant was We hold tucky residence. disqualified. decision, in 2-to-l how- Appeals, Court of ever, disqualified under held that 29(l)(d) offer of "suitable refused an having The Court reached its "good cause”. work” without law, of that "resi- holding by ruling, a matter 29(6) in in both the which dence” "means the time the offer of the claimant resides at the job was made and the localities which claimant he earned the base during resided added.) 57 (Emphasis period credit weeks”. Appeals holding clearly find the Court of We erroneous.
First,
interpretation
unorthodox
the Court’s
may
mean that a
word
"residence”
more)
(or
places
rather
than one
reside
two
definition of
place
rejected
light
must
by this Court
pronounced
"residence”
the word
In re
Judge
Circuit
Wright Genesee
Schem-
Estate,
must
in this
er’s
apply
the definition we
statutory
lack
definition
case because
Furthermore,
interpret
"residence” as
the term.
Appeals
essentially
does
Court of
would be
29(6) to
to that
amending
contrary
reach a result
plain
Leg-
language
by
fixed
mandated
we cannot do.
islature. This
proper
to amend
not the
function of
court
"It is
*17
566
Third, of Appeals the Court hold- this result of 8600-8699, Compensation V, Wage Unemployment Interstate Part Combining Plans. accurately Payment Plan described as The Interstate Benefit follows: possible unemploy- plan to collect it for individuals "This makes they qualifying in which have a state ment insurance beneñts from procedures wages, although they present state. The in that are not may agent developed plan provide that each state act as an *18 Thus, pay taking each state will benefits in claims for all other states. computed wages its under law and determined on basis of earned the any the of taken in local offices its benefit formula on claims under plan agent acting the liable state. The is state as an for based other principle payments worker the to a multi-state are to on that benefit apply subject requirements would if he to the state were be the same taking actually claims benefits. In a in from which he claim worker, 'agent’ unemployed the state does not has no from an regarding authority plan the the to make decisions worker’s under 'agent’ merely rights The state under of 'liable’ state. the law the necessary from the worker and forwards it the information to obtains the tion as to may make 'liable’ in order the látter its own determina- state eligibility, in of benefits and amount duration accord- claiming any state, from other with its law. benefits ance own Before may required he is to whatever benefit credits the worker exhaust unemployed. may which He then file have in the state in he becomes against any may or states in which he for other state claim benefits have rights acquired a has In the event multi-state worker benefit credits. states, paid are laws of or more 'liable’ benefits the two chronological by the order as the worker earned those states in same added.) respective (Emphasis IB the in states.” his benefit credits 2050, Reports, House, Unemployment Clearing Insurance ¶ Commerce p (1976). agreements These exist between all states. IB See 2050, House, Reports, Clearing Unemployment Insurance ¶ Commerce pp (1976). remarks, conclusory Appeals, stated: The Court of its provisions the act with of are "We not unaware of agreements may cooperative enter respect which commission to holding Clearly, agencies other states. our herein similar into with way any reciprocal agreement pay pro rata a share will in no affect respective upon in the credit weeks earned based of benefits is made under law other various states where claim 57 Mich 29-30. state.” may technically Basic Inter- as accurate This conclusion Wages agreed Combining has Agreement the MESC for in which state has pro worked pay the claimant who rata share benefits eligible (including Michigan) who but two or more states wages. qualifying See MESC any of lack of state because beneñts 8600-8699, Manual, Appendix Chapter The Part V. kind 1 to by by protected agreements, is not affected Court these Mich op the Court ing underlying with the inconsonant law and spirit unemployment compen- of the Federal-state system. Employment Security sation Amend- ments of speak Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 3304(a)(9)(A) directly point. to this Section states: "[C]ompensation shall not be deniеd or reduced
individual solely because files claim in another ** * * * * State or because he resides in another State at the time he files a claim for compen- 3304(a)(9)(A). added.)9 sation.” 26 (Emphasis USC conformity
The need for to basic Federal law in Department this area is illustrated California Development Java, of Human Resources 402 US (1971), 121; 91 S Ct 28 L 2d 666 Ed where Supreme enjoined withholding the employee Court pending employee appeal 303(a)(1) violative of Act, of the Social 503(a)(1), requires 42 USCA which administration unemployment compensation of state laws in a *19 Appeals holding does claimant, having eligible, because such a never been prospect being disqualified face the not after he moves and However, reemployment Appeals refuses the offer. the Court of fails Payment designed to mention the Interstate Benefit Plan which is to unemployed person qualifying benefit who has earned base credit wages Michigan movement in the labor market right in and thereafter exercises his to freedom of by moving locality from the where he registers earned base credit to weeks аnother state where he work, work, work,” seeks and is "able and available for or the Continuing Wages, designed Extended Interstate Plan for benefit the which is to unemployed person state, who to moves another finds employment, ual, unemployed again. See, and then becomes Man- MESC 8600-8699, Appendix Chapter purpose V. Part The obvious agreements provide eligible of these is to benefits for the qualifying Michigan, who has earned base credit in weeks moved to state, eligible another Court of and become for benefits in the other state. The Appeals holding, discourages eligible which an otherwise exercising right claimant from his to freedom of movement within the market, clearly agreements. labor undermines these legislation As we noted in fn this Federal became effective Annotations, 3304(a)(9)(A)(Pocket January 1972. See 26 USCA Part 1976),p 171. Am Screw Opinion of the Court to insure pay- calculated full "reasonably
manner when due”. benefits ment of US Appeals
However, holding, the Court of to another person who moves state unemployed (outside a constitutes "reasona- radius of what locality from the where distance” ble weeks) eligible credit аnd becomes earned base there, accept a reemploy- would have to In disqualified by or be MESC. ment offer effect, being prospect faces the person such a "because he resides in an- compensation, denied would, therefore, ruling other This kind state”. in 26 USC policy expressed frustrate Federal 3304(a)(9)(A) effectively as the construction en- it it Java. challenged, likely If that joined conformity. Federal enjoined to secure would be because prospect But need fear our we common, ordinary meaning holding 29(6) vindicates, rather applies "residence” frustrates, than the Federal scheme. holding Appeals the Court of reached its
Finally, 29(6) means either a claim that "residence” in § or a when the made ant’s residence the time he at earned residence claimant’s of erroneous statu base credit weeks on basis First, it argued the court tory construction. say eligibility require anomalous would be 28(1)(c) required conjunctively seeking ment in § "either at he earned his locality which at credit where weeks commission rule and not the same finds available work” resрect disqualification to the way with 29(1)(d). However, the fact the matter is that 28(1)(c) is already held that part II we have *20 not Conse conjunctive. and clearly disjunctive anomaly. is no there quently, 398 Mich Opinion op the Court Appeals anomaly Second, the feared an Court 29(6) 28(1)(a)(2). 28(1)(a)(2) § § between Section provides:
"Except period disqualification, require ment may individual shall seek work be waived it finds commission where that suitable work is locality both in the unavailable where the which the individual localities in resides and those period individual has earned base credit weeks.” MCLA 17.530(1)(a)(2). 421.28(1)(a)(2);MSA Appeals argued: The Court of language "This clearly indicates that suitable work may only locality exist not in the where the claimant resides but also at the localities at which claimant thereby compelled earned credit weeks. We are to con- 29(6) clude that the term 'residence’ as used means § locality both the in which the claimant at resides time the was made and the localities in which during period claimant resided he earned the period base credit weeks.” Mich Appeals argument, although super
Thе Court of ficially plausible, fundamentally erroneous. 28(1)(a)(2), 29(6) suggesting First, instead (or more) recog clearly residences, refers to two locality nizes that the of residence and where the may individual earned base credit weeks be separate 29(6), two course, localities. Section only locality former, considers of residence. locality Second, of residence and the may where base credit weeks are earned be two separate places but so distant from each other that work at the latter would not be within rea sonable distance from the claimant’s residence. 28(1)(a)(2) 29(6) logically Thus, § preted together. can inter *21 Am Screw Fitzgerald, J.
IV — Conclusion language in the Michigan Because of the clear Act, interstate agree- Employment Security it, and the Federal-state di- accompanying ments it, we hold integral mension who left a Bingham, Kentucky worker adequate housing find because he could not job afford, price his he could returned to family at a appropri- work with the Kentucky, registered for there, diligently sought office and employment ate work, for suitable made himself аvailable but from his former Michigan turned down a job distance from his employer Kentucky due to the (1) residence, serving for benefits after requalified under the disqualification refusing was not former em- offer because the offer was not an offer ployer’s job rejected was therefore with of "suitable work” and the fact that was too "good cause” due to far distant from his residence. the administrative determination
We reinstate Michigan Employment Security Commis- sion, and the trial court and the Court of reverse Appeals. costs, question.
No public Kavanagh, J., Levin, J., concurred with C. Williams, J. J.,
Ryan, in the of this part took no decision case. (concurring).
Fitzgerald, achieved J. result Appeals the Court of in this case is by reversing policies underly- of the most to one basic contrary Act, which Michigan Employment Security ing em- encourage employers provide stable is to 398 Mich Coleman, Opinion by J. ployment. 421.2; MSA 17.502. To MCLA extend persons voluntarily who leave regular employment to become in this state nonresidents does not encourage employment practices stable and it further funds available reduces to those who are involuntarily unemployed. must, however,
We apply statute as written. v Employment As was said in Thomas Commission, 665, 669; NW2d *22 (1959): proper "It is not the function of the court to amend disqualifications
the statute to broaden or extend the fixed, plain in language, legislature. by Whether ought one in question disqualified claimant’s situation to be is a policy legislature, of judicial not a question to by be determined court.” reason, For this I reluctantly concur reversal of the Court Appeals.
Lindemer, J., with Fitzgerald, concurred J. (to remand). Coleman, J. problem The basic this compensation case has 29(l)(d)1 been treated a as case in the courts below, 29(l)(e)2 but this Court has treated it as a § adequate case. Without supporting facts rele- and law, vant findings of the nature of the case has been recast by this Court. The assumptions upon which we are asked to decide the case may may valid, we but are not adequately informed.
Therefore, we would remand to the appeal board for a clear determination whether a 29(1)(d) 29(1)(e) or a matter and a finding support facts the conclusion. 17.531(1)(d). 421.29(1)(d); MSA MCLA 17.531(1)(e). 421.29(1)(e); MSA MCLA Products Amv Screw J. Coleman, on job his November quit
Plaintiff voluntarily Pineville, Kentucky 17, 1969. come from He had American Screw Prod- worked for defendant going His reason for for ten months. Company ucts his given was in Pineville his home back housing Michigan. inability find suitable fault. employer was without 2, 1969, filed a benefit plaintiff On December Security Com- Michigan Employment claim. The (MESC) notice of determination issued a mission without holding plaintiff left receiving benefits He from cause. until after weeks which requalification a six March January ended 1970. On sent company the determination protested plaintiff: this notice to which been filed copy petition has "Attached is Michigan Employment Commission.
with Company "On behalf of American Screw requested report your at are for work scheduled you in the with the notice included hours accordance petition has been sent to the redetermination which *23 commission. employer expects you
"The to return to work report failure accordance this notice and a to with regular you that not availa- your job would indicate are act is not intended for ble benefit suitable work persons accept who to suitable work refuse accept regular job.” who refuse to their MESC respond any way. Plaintiff failed to April its determination on 5 and reaffirmed to a affirmed MESC company referee who appealed 29, saying: September on appeal whether "The issues involved concern report failed cause to the claimant without notice employer within reasonable time after former Coleman, Opinion by J. concerning from employer such for an interview availa- work, coming provisions ble suitable under 29(l)(d) of the act. § "A further issue concerns whether the claimant was eligible available for for benefits work and in this 28(l)(c) respect under act.” § The referee said the "was not offered work suita [Bingham’s] ble due to the distance from residence 29(6) and, provided under of the act accord ingly, no imposed disqualification 29(1)(d) of the act”. The referee also concluded circumstances, and inasmuch as "[u]nder the claimant not placed any has undue restrictions on his availability, deemed to have 28(1)(c)”. been available for work under § The company appeal filed an and the appeal bоard affirmed on March a 2-to-1 vote. The two members said simply that the referee’s decision "is in conformity with the law and facts”.
The company appealed this decision to the Oak- land circuit court which reversed. The judge ruled that claimant receiving "is from benefits under the act
by failing requalify by failing accept suitable employment of agree when offered. I with the conclusions employer purpose stated of the act neither in fact or law would neither be carried out. Neither would carried out.” granted appeal
MESC was leave to this decision. opinion 29, 1974, In an issued November the Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court but limited question its review to the of whether 29(1)(d). disqualified under analysis The Court’s led a conclusion that *24 offer of the
"the same at the same that location Am Screw by J. Coleman, good cause attributa without voluntarily left unit is suitable work employing employer to the ble 29(6). plaintiff does not Since meaning of within § any reason unsuitable job was the old claim pres in which he from the the distance than resides, was suitable as a offered ently the work 'good cause’ not have to Plaintiff did mаtter of law. and thus he employer is report to his former refuse to 29(1)(d) of his failure to by reason disqualified under § receiving notice of employer upon report former job.” 57 availability of his old NW2d 199 required between analysis A difference ("failed good cause to without §29(1)(d) matters * * * interview”) 29(1)(e) and for an report § ("failed suitable work accept good cause without offered”). when an appears 9 letter be March employer’s persons below panels
offer of work but interview, although it offer to have labeled 29(l)(e) standards. treating it under sometimes confusing. The result is at best board appeal to the Therefore, remand we would of whether determination for a clear 29(1)(e) former, 29(1)(d) there If the matter. or § had of whether be consideration should March 9 to the respond failing cause for have would the interview If he claims letter. work, should company unsuitable concerned burden to meet its opportunity afforded latter, be consideration If the there should proof. A con suitable. the work offered was of whether into account taking be reached clusion should 29(6) This should individually. each factor of fact finding specific careful very entail a of law. prior to a conclusion Remand.