*1 MINING PARTNERSHIP v ORHANEN EMPIRE IRON 166054, 166055, 10, 1994, May at Docket Nos. 166056. Submitted 23, 1995, Marquette. May at 9:05 a.m. Decided employees who went on strike Peter Orhanen and two other against Empire Mining Partnership Magnetite Iron and Tilden Partnership unemployment compensation each filed a claim for Michigan Employment Security benefits with the Commission working during after weeks the strike for more consecutive receiving wages equaled employer than one that or ex- employment ceeded the benefit rate for the involved in Michigan Security Employment Board of Re- strike. The employment view determined that each claimant’s interim multiple employers dispute disqualifica- terminated his labor unemployment compensation pursuant tion from benefits to 17.531(8). 421.29(8); Empire Magne- MCL MSA Iron and Tilden appealed Marquette respect tite Circuit Court with claimant, arguing employment each that the must interim be court, J., single employer. Quinnell, with a Edward A. appeals consolidated the and affirmed the decision of the board Appeals by Empire Magnetite of review. Iron and Tilden respect by to the claimants were consolidated the Court of Appeals, Michigan Employment Security and the Commission appeal. filed a cross Appeals The Court of held: 17.531(8) MCL MSA not that does employment only interim be with one in order for the dispute disqualification termination of a striker’s labor unemployment compensation benefits. Affirmed. Mackenzie, P.J., dissenting, stated that MCL 17.531(8) requires the interim be with one
employer only requalify unemploy- in order for a striker to for compensation ment benefits. References 2d, Compensation Unemployment Am Jur 174. Unemployment compensation: dispute disqualification ap- plicable ment striking employee subsequent employ- who is laid off during period. strike 61 ALR3d 766. Iron v Orhanen Unemployment Compensation Dispute — Disqualification Labor — Multiple Employers. — Requalification employee goes against employer may qualify
An who on strike an unemployment compensation during benefits the strike obtaining interim from one or more other *2 wage ers for at least two consecutive weeks and at a equals or exceeds the benefit rate for the (MCL 421.29[8]; 17.531[8]). in involved the strike MSA Clancey, Graybill Hansen, Chilman, Greenlee, & Greenlee), (by Empire P.C. E. Ronald for Iron Mining Partnership Magnetite and Tilden Part- nership. Bridges Houghton, (by Hough- & P.A. Bruce L.
ton) Engberg (by Peter, and & Peterson John G. Engberg Higbee), and Scott A. for Peter Orhanen and others. Kelley, Attorney General,
Frank J. L. Thomas Casey, General, Solicitor Davidson, and Mark F. Attorney Michigan Employ- General, Assistant Security ment Commission. P.J.,
Before: and Neff Mackenzie, and R. L. Olzark,* JJ. payment
Neff, J. These three cases involve the unemployment striking employees benefits to appellant mining operations. employers ap- peal right opinion as of from a circuit court and affirming by Michigan Employ- order decisions Security ment ees were not Board of Review that these
disqualified receiving unemploy- they requalified ment benefits because for benefits Michigan Employment under rity Secu- 17.531(8). Act MCL MSA (mesa), employee Each had more than one dur- ing requalification period. the two-week The Michi-
* judge, sitting Appeals by assignment. Circuit on the Court of 211 Mich gan Employment Security Commission has filed appeal aligned employers’ position. cross with the We hold that the statute does not subsequent employment only to be with one em- appellants argue ployer accordingly we agree affirm. We with the circuit court and the review, board of both of which held that phrase §in "an found can include more than one ob- tained these three claimants was bona fide statutory within the definition of the term "em- 17.545(1). ployment” found at MCL regard I reached a similar conclusion with to the Mining thirteen claimants Iron Partner- ship Asmund,
(1995), my dissenting opinion.
i employees, Claimant who are members of the *3 against Union, United Steelworkers appellant employers on went strike July 31, 1990, from to Decem- striking 1, workers, ber 1990. As were dis- qualified receiving unemployment from benefits dispute under the labor set forth § in of the mesa. That in subsection states pertinent part: disqualified
An individual shall for be benefits for a week in which individual’s or in total partial unemployment is due to a progress .... active MSA [MCL 17.531(8).] provides The same subsection for the termina- dispute disqualification tion of the labor under 29(8), portion certain conditions. The relevant added when the enacted 1974 PA states: Iron v Orhanen disqualification imposed or im-
An individual’s this subsection shall be terminated posable under performing in services by the individual’s in 2 consecutive with an at least ment weeks falling wholly period within the of the partial unemployment or due individual’s total the labor earning dispute, in addition equal in wages in of those weeks an amount each in poten- to or excess individual’s actual of rate respect to those benefít tial weeks based on the individual’s dispute. in employer involved the labor [MCL 17.531(8). Emphasis added.] cases, for the claimants worked In each of these during period, multiple employers the strike but single employer for two consec- never worked for a claimant, however, earned utive weeks. Each during wages necessary requalification two for wages his multi- weeks when the consecutive ple employers of review were combined. The board their that the claimants could combine concluded during multiple employers from their 29(8), under consecutive weeks against chargeable hence could collect benefits and appellants’ the claimants con- mesc accounts while against appellants. their strike The circuit tinued agree. court affirmed. We
ii §29(8) part that These cases involve perform requires worker to "services for at least two terminate the labor consecutive weeks dispute disqualification. order previously noted, none
As *4 cases worked two consec- of the claimants these during single employer any the utive weeks for strike, multiple performed services for but each period employers consecutive weeks over a App 134 211 Mich 130 equal at his and had total least employers’ position benefit rate. The is that the statutory language "services in employer” requiring an should be construed as striking worker to obtain with one particular employer period for a two-week order requalify to position for benefits. The workers’ statutory language
is that should be requiring employment any construed as num- ber ployer,” entities who fit the definition of an "em- 17.543, 421.41;
see MCL over a two- period. only question week then is whether employer” prevents the reference in to "an reestablishing eligibility these claimants from benefits. language
The dissent would add to the statute to reach its conclusion that qualified these workers are dis-
because worked for more than one phrase We will not read the "substan- employment” tial, bona fide interim into conceding does, the dissent even while term "an can be construed to mean "a employer.” minimum of one
A
statutory
a remedial act and its
mesa
safeguard
general
scheme is intended to
wel-
Corp,
App
fare. Tomei v General Motors
194 Mich
180, 184;
B purpose by amend- achieved is ing objective criteria be dispute dis- in order to terminate the labor met qualification (1) receipt the claim- of benefits: employment weeks, must have for at least two ant (2) earned at least as much as the and have in the rate for the involved benefit dispute. relatively minimal re- These two quirements clearly succinctly are and established nothing required. in the statute and tory more is Statu- unnecessary the lan- is because construction unequivocal unambiguous. guage Lorencz v 844 is and Co, 483 Ford Motor Mich NW2d require- not add We cannot and should to the statute that are not found there. ments require- dissenting colleague would add Our not determination ments to holding by that workers must in the statute found "substantial, fide interim bona obtain ment,” post, p 138, re- and that these additional "[i]rregular quirements or occa- cannot be met array employers . . . sional work for an even good p Post, when undertaken in faith.” 139. statutory interpretation unnecessary This improper subjective require- it because would add objective requirements ments to the of the statute. any- When is thing "substantial” and is forty-hour "irregular” less than a week or "occasional”? Where would we look to defini- find *6 judicially tions of these terms if we add them to the statute?
c go We need not outside the statute to determine employment purposes whether is bona fide for of requalification for benefits because the statute de- "employment,” fines both the term MSA MCL 17.545(1), "unemployed,” and the term MCL 421.48; MSA 17.552. The mesa serves as the basis applied for the definitions to be tory compliance. to determine statu- supra; Lakes, Great Nordham v Calhoun, statutory require-
claimants have met all of the employment any inquiry ments of bona fide into the subjective elements of that clearly outside the bounds of the statute. dispute disqualification
The reach of the labor clearly Legislature. has been establishment of limited
strictly objective criteria for re- qualification perfectly pur- serves the reasonable pose good public policy avoiding litiga- and the of large unemployment tion of resolve difficult and numbers of claims to
disputed questions subjec- of tive nature. concepts
Given the of liberal construction to purposes effect the remedial of the mesa and the narrow construction to be afforded provisions, we hold that workers who obtain em- Iron v Orhanen by Mackenzie, P.J. Dissent
ployment, leaving Michigan so, in this case to do penalized doing when, not be so even should dissent, words of the the work is undertaken "good language faith.” We will not add to the statute to disallow because ees work for more than one We con- plain reading clude that the support of the statute cannot penalty. such a
Affirmed. J.,
R. L. Olzark, concurred. §29(8) (dissenting). MacKenzie, P.J. Under Michigan Security Employment Act (mesa), 17.531(8), striking workers MCL disqualified receiving generally are froto unem- provides ployment benefits. The same subsection dispute disqualifi- for the termination of this labor conditions, cation under certain however. These part requiring involve that a strik- cases ing perform "services in worker for at least two consecutive in order to terminate the labor weeks *7 disqualification. majority’s view, In the that statu- tory language unambiguous is and allows a striker requalify by obtaining employment to for benefits any fit number of entities who the definition "employer,” 17.543, 421.41; of an over a two-week see MCL period. agree. my I cannot In 29(8) view, § the intended to one bona fide for two equal consecutive weeks at at least to the rate before the labor claimant’s benefit Accordingly, is terminated. I dissent. history demonstrates,
As the of these cases the statutory language susceptible at is of more issue interpretation. If than one reasonable minds can App 211 130 138 Mich by Mackenzie, Dissent P.J. regarding meaning judicial statute,
differ
the
of a
Dep’t
appropriate.
of Social Ser-
construction
Brewer,
82, 84;
v
180 Mich
446 NW2d
vices
593
(1989).
pur-
We should therefore look to
designed
pose
remedy,
it
of the statute and the harm is
to
apply
that
a reasonable construction
gives
Legislature.
to the intent of the
Mar-
effect
(After
quis
Indemnity
v
Re-
Hartford Accident &
mand),
(1994);
444
Empire
Mining Partnership
Asmund,
v
Iron
(1995),
118; 535
Mich
NW2d
was added
Empire
Mining,
explained
of sufficient to warrant dispute disqualification. termination of the labor Mining, supra; supra. Chemical, Iron Dow light Legislature’s In intent substantial, em- workers obtain ployment bona fide interim requalified before are to receive compensation unemployment benefits, it is reason- interpret requirement able of two "employment consecutive weeks’ with an em- regular employment single ployer” to mean with a employer. Requalification during a strike is based *8 premise the on that claimants are entitled to Iron Orhanen by Mackenzie, Dissent P.J. a have been laid off from benefits because job the struck em- new with someone other than Unemployment ployer. generally anno: com- See pensation: dispute disqualiñcation appli- Labor as striking employee is laid off subse- cable to quent employment during who period, 61 ALR3d
strike Irregular array 766. employers or occasional work for an of period, during the strike
for two weeks good faith, does not fit even when undertaken that situation.
Interpreting
requirement
the
of two weeks’ "em-
ployment
meaning employ-
employer”
as
multiple
ment with one
employers
rather
than
general
is also consistent with the
rule
phrase
every
word or
in a statute should be
plain
meaning.
ordinary
In
accorded its
and
re
Regarding Coin-Operated
PSC’s Determination
Telephones,
No
ordinarily
single
NW2d 775
"An”
denotes a
entity.
majority’s construction,
item or
Under the
"an
means "a minimum of one em-
ployer.”
may
plausible,
While this construction
be
clearly
typical meaning
it
is not the
of the word.
meaning
Had the
signed by
the
intended
as-
majority, presumably
it would have
provide
in bona fide period employer over a two-week and suffi- earns cient from that Because the so, claimants in these cases did not do I would reverse the decisions board review finding employees requalified the circuit court to receive unemployment compensation benefits.