Clаimant Margaret Braun was employed as an elevator operator and claimant Walter Roesler as a janitor by plaintiff Intertown Corporаtion, a Michigan corporation, which owns and operates the David Broderick Tower, an office building in Detroit. A group of the corporation еmployees desired union recognition and gave a strike ultimatum to plaintiff. An еmplojmr witness stated that prior to the strike date the corporation аgreed to arrange an election, but that the employees nevertheless went out on strike on October 26, 1948.
*365 Elevator operation was restorеd within an hour. New employees were hired, and there was no work stoppаge 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 interрreted 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 а department store during the Christmas holidays and, when laid off, filed an unemployment сlaim on January 7, 1949. Walter Boesler worked for the 6 days before Christmas and filed his сlaim on January 12,1949. Neither claimant asked for unemployment benefits betweеn October 26th and December 14th. The commission’s redetermination of May 10, 1949, held that claimants were not disqualified under section 29 of the unemployment comрensation act (PA 1936 [Ex Sess], No 1, as amended [CL 1948, § 421.1 et seq. (Stat Ann 1949 Cum Supp § 17.501 et seq.)]).
Plaintiff’s appeals were heаrd before the referee on May 31, 1949. He affirmed the redeterminations on thе ground that claimants were not disqualified under section 29(1) (a)(1) or section 29(1) (b) of the act. The appeal board affirmed the findings of the referee, as did thе 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 section 29(1) (a) (2) and under the Bonine-Tripp act (PA 1939, No 176, as amended [CL 1948, § 423.1 et seq. (Stat Ann 1949 Cum Supp § 17.454[1] et seq.)]), were not asserted before the referee or the appeal bоard. They were included for the first time in the petition for certiorari beforе the circuit court. That court, while making reference to section 29(1) (a) (2), did nоt pass on these, but merely *366 affirmed the findings of the referee. The refereе and appeal board heard argument only on section 29(1) (a)(1) and seсtion 29(1) (b), the latter no longer being urged.
While the matter here is treated as a gеneral appeal (CL 1948, § 421.38 [Stat Ann 1949 Cum Supp § 17.540];
Palmer
v.
Unemployment Compensation Commission,
In maintaining its neutral position in employer-employee relations, the State has established stаtutory bases of disqualification for unemployment benefits. The disqualifications оf 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 for those weeks of his unemployment which are due to stopрage of work because of a labor dispute in which he is directly involved. This sрecific provision in regard to the labor dispute disqualification indicates that such should not be within the reach of the “voluntary leaving” of section 29(1) (a)(1).
In the Matter of Landaal,
This Court need not characterize the “fault” in the strike. Unemployment compensation does not depend upon the merits of a labor dispute.
Lawrence Baking Co.
v.
Unemployment Compensation Commission,
The judgment is affirmed, with costs to appellees.