Court Opinion

ID: 9684744
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 14:10:10.861113+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:59.265724
License: Public Domain

Souris, J.
(concurring). When Renown Stove Company v. Unemployment Compensation Commission (1950), 328 Mich 436, and Hubbard v. Unemployment Compensation Commission (1950), 328 Mich 444, were decided a claimant situated similarly to claimants herein had to meet two criteria in order to obtain unemployment compensation benefits. He had to establish that he was unemployed according to the definition of CL 1948, § 421.48a (Stat Ann 1947 Cum Supp § 17.552 [1]):
“An individual shall be deemed ‘unemployed’ with respect to any week during which he performs no services and with respect to which no remuneration is payable to him, or with respect to any week of less than full-time work if the remuneration payable to him is less than his primary weekly benefit rate.”
He had also to establish that the period during which he did not work was not a vacation with pay, since under CL 1948, § 421.29 (Stat Ann 1950 Rev § 17.531), one who was on a paid vacation was disqualified for benefits even if the vacation payments were less than the applicable weekfy benefit rate.
PA 1951, No 251 abolished this section 29 ground for disqualification. Accordingly, the claimants in this case of Rich are entitled to benefits, since they, meet the standards for an unemployed individual entitled to benefits specified in the current version *247of section 48a,1 no other ground for disqualification having been advanced. Employment Security Commission v. Vulcan Forging Company (1965), 375 Mich 374.
As Mr. Justice Dethmers notes, the reasoning of Renown and Hubbard, by which it was concluded that the payments received therein from the employers were bonuses and not payments with respect to the period of nonemployment of claimants, is applicable" to the circumstances of Rich.2 That being so, I concur in reversal of the circuit court order and affirmance of the appeal board.
T. M. Kavanagh, C. J., and Smith, J., concurred with Souris, J.

 CLS 1961, § 421.48 (Stat Ann 1960 Rev § 17.552).

 One of the claimants, A. Smith, would be entitled to some benefits even if it were found that the payments made to him were with respect to the alleged vacation period, since in his case the payments of $35.54 per week were less than his weekly benefit rate of $55. See Vulcan, supra. . As to the other claimants, however, if it were found that the payments they received were not bonuses, but, on the contrary, were instead attributable to the alleged vacation period, they would be entitled to no benefits, since the payments they received for each of the alleged vacation weeks were greater than .the applicable weekly benefit rates. See section 48, supra.