Court Opinion

ID: 9724476
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 10:57:45.955944+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:00.738527
License: Public Domain

O’Hara, J.
(concurring). I yield to the majority view and concur with the Chief Justice for the following reasons:
At page 469, in I. M. Dach Underwear Company v. Employment Security Commission, 347 Mich 465, the following appears:
“The employment security commission denied compensation on the ground that the applicants were on vacation, and, hence, not available for ivork.” (Emphasis supplied.)
Dach has been expressly overruled by a majority of this Court. Hence claimant here must be con*130sidered to have met the eligibility requirements of section 28. 
This then leaves the question of the legislative intent of section 48  to be determined without reference to section 28. I, therefore, agree with Mr. Justice Souris’ determination of that intent as expressed by him in Vulcan,3
I adhere to the view of the waiver theory expressed by the Minnesota Supreme Court4 as follows (P 62) :
“There is an important distinction between an agreement for a leave or vacation shutdown which gives rise to no unemployment compensation benefits and a collusive agreement that unemployment compensation benefits be waived.” 
My concurrence with the Chief Justice is planted upon the wording of section 48 read independent of and unlimited by our prior interpretation of the eligibility requirements of section 28.

 Employment Security Commission v. Vulcan Forging Company, 375 Mich 374.

 Jackson v. Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Company, 234 Minn 52 (47 NW2d 449).