Court Opinion

ID: 9669379
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 02:54:27.180983+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:56.014633
License: Public Domain

O’Hara, J.
(dissenting). I do not agree that Dach1 has been overruled by implication, nor that it should be overruled expressly. It should control here. Malone2 was correctly distinguished from Dach in the Malone opinion.
*382In disposition hereof I would, as to all claimants but Sineveck, vacate the order of the circuit judge and affirm the decision of the appeal board for I agree with its finding that the vacation period which extended into September was not within the contract designated time. Hence for that period the claimants, if otherwise eligible, were entitled to benefits.
As to claimant Sineveck, I would vacate the decisions of the circuit court, the appeal board, the •referee and the determination and redetermination of the commission, for under Dach since his whole vacation time was within the contract designated period, he is entitled to no benefits.
The cause should be reversed and remanded to the circuit court with directions to enter orders consonant herewith. No costs, a public question.
Dethmers and Kelly, JJ., concurred with O’Hara, J.
Adams, J., took no part in the decision of this case.

 I. M. Dach Underwear Co. v. Employment Security Commission, 347 Mich 465.

 Malone v. Employment Security Commission, 352 Mich 472.