Sullivan v. Employment Security Commission

100 N.W.2d 713, 358 Mich. 338

• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Decided: January 4, 1960
• Docket: Docket 48, Calendar 47,914
• Status: Published

Opinions

Kavanagh, J.

Claimant was employed by defendant Ceco Steel Products Corporation as a laborer from August 2, 1950, to August 9, 1957. Monday, August 12th, was his next work day. On this day he advised the employer that he had some personal business “downtown” and that he was taking 1/2 day off to take care of this business. While “downtown” he met some friends and began to drink, eventually becoming intoxicated, was arrested and was sent to the Detroit house of correction for a 30-day period. He was released on Saturday, September. 7th, from this sentence. On Thursday, August 15th, the employer received a telephone call from claimant’s wife stating that the claimant was arrested for drunkenness and was incarcerated in the Detroit house of correction. On the following Friday claimant’s wife picked up his check. She continued to call the employer 1 or 2 times each week thereafter while the claimant was in jail.

Claimant applied to his employer for a resumption of work either on Tuesday, September 10th, as alleged by the claimant, or on Thursday, September 12th, as testified to by the employer’s witness. He was not reinstated. He had been removed from the payroll as a “voluntary quit” as of August 15, 1957.

On September 16, 1957, claimant filed a claim for unemployment benefits and the claim was denied. It was alleged he was disqualified under the provisions of the Michigan employment security act

*, section 29, subd (1) (a) (1) (CLS 1956, § 421.29 [Stat Ann 1957 Cum Supp § 17.531]), because his separation was considered voluntary and in no way attributable to his employer. It was conceded that the employer received notice from the wife of the claimant on the fourth day of his absence from work, which is within the terms of the contract between the company and the union that in order not to be considered as a “voluntary quit” an employee is to give notice within 4 days.

A request for redetermination ivas filed by claimant, and prior determination affirmed by the commission on November 12, 1957. The referee who heard the case on November 25, 1957, affirmed the redetermination issued by the commission. The decision of the referee was affirmed by the appeal board on February 18, 1958. The decision of the appeal board was in turn affirmed by the late Joseph A. Moynihan, judge of the Wayne county circuit court, from which decision claimant appeals.

Section 29 of the Michigan employment security act (CLS 1956, §421.29 [Stat Ann 1957 Cum Supp §17.531]) provides, in part, as follows:

“(1) An individual shall be disqualified for benefits :

“(a) For the duration of his unemployment in all cases where the individual has: (1) Left his work voluntarily without good cause attributable to the employer or employing unit, or (2) has been discharged for misconduct connected with his work or for intoxication while at work.”

The sole question before this Court is: May an employee who is discharged by his employer because of his forced absence from work, occasioned by his incarceration for being drunk, properly be disqualified for benefits under section 29, subd (1) (a) (1) of the employment security act on the theory that he left his work voluntarily without good cause attributable to his employer?

A similar question was before this Court in tbe case of Thomas v. Employment Security Commission, 356 Mich 665. Tbe majority opinion in that case, written by Chief Justice Dethmers, controls the fact situation presented to us here. No service would be rendered the bench and bar in restating the legal reasoning and the citation of authorities referred to in the Thomas opinion. It should be sufficient to quote a part of the last paragraph, which reads as follows (p 670):

“There appears to have been nothing voluntary about this so far as claimant was concerned. On the contrary, at that juncture he was present at a place where he did not wish to be, jail, and, perforce, absent from the place where he did wish to be, his place of work.”

Section 29 of the act is the disqualification section. Under subsection (1) (a) (2) thereof it specifically mentions discharge for misconduct connected with work or for intoxication while at work.

The legislature did not make provision for disqualification under the facts in this case. It is not the proper function of this Court to amend the statute to broaden or extend the disqualifications fixed by plain language by the legislature. Whether such a disqualification ought to be inserted in the act is an argument that should be presented to the legislature and not to this Court.

The order affirming the determination of the appeal board by the circuit judge is hereby reversed. Judgment may be entered in accordance with this opinion. Costs in favor of appellant.

Dethmers, C. J., and Smith, Black, and Edwards, JJ., concurred with Kavanagh, J.

CL 1948 and CLS 1956, § 421.1 et seq. (Stat Ann 1950 Rev and Stat Ann 1957 Cum Supp § Í7.501 et seq.).