Court Opinion

ID: 9724475
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 10:57:45.950775+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:00.737460
License: Public Domain

T. M. Kavanagh, C. J.
Plaintiff was employed by the Cone Drive Gears Division, Michigan Tool Com*128pany, and was laid off on July 8, 1960, for two weeks by his employer and remained unemployed for that period. Plaintiff was not entitled to any vacation pay under the company-union bargaining agreement because he had been on layoff during 1959 and had not acquired 30 days seniority prior to December 31, 1959.
Plaintiff sought to continue working during the vacation period but was told by his foreman that the men who were to work had already been selected, and that there would be no work available for him. He r.eturned' to work on July 25, 1960.
Plaintiff filed a claim July 11, 1960, and certified for weeks ending July 16 and July 23, 1960, with the Michigan employment security commission. The hearing referee and the commission denied his claim. The appeal board of the Michigan employment security commission and the Ingham circuit court affirmed. Plaintiff, on leave granted by this Court, appeals/contending he was eligible for benefits as an unemployed person within the meaning of the Michigan employment security act1 for the two-week period which his employer designated as a “vacation.”
The sole question in this case is whether appellant was eligible for benefits as an unemployed person within the meaning of the Michigan employment security act for the two-week period which his employer and union designated as a compulsory vacation period.
Appellees contend, (1) that the purpose of the said act is to provide relief for people who are out of work through no fault of their own; the fault here is solely that of the claimant; that he, through his lawful and designated agent, negotiated a contract *129which, put him out of work for a two-week period iu July; that the claimant’s remedy is a change in the contract reducing the eligibility requirements for vacation pay, it is not a petition for unemployment benefits; that legally and morally, he was voluntarily out of work and to permit him to draw unemployment benefits is to make a mockery of the employment security act and of the union contract; (2) that this case is controlled by the case of I. M. Dach Underwear Company v. Employment Security Commission, 347 Mich 465.
These arguments were discussed and squarely answered by the majority opinion of this Court in Employment Security Commission v. Vulcan Forging Company, 375 Mich 374, 376, reversing the Dach Case.
Reversed and remanded for entry of order granting unemployment benefits to the appellant. Plaintiff shall have costs.
Black, Souris, and Smith, JJ., concurred with T. M. Kavanagh, C. J.

 PA 1936 (Ex Sess), No 1 (CL 1948, § 421.1 et seq., as amended [Stat Ann 1960 Rev § 17.501 et seq.]).