Sections 29(5), 40, 41
LEAVING TO ACCEPT, Excluded employment, Out of state employment, Restrictions on travel
CITE AS: Robinson v Young Men's ChristianRobinson v Young Men's Christian AssociationRobinson v Young Men's Christian Association, 123 Mich App 442 (1983).
Appeal pending: No
Claimant: George Robinson
Employer: Young Men's Christian Association
Docket No: B76 18107 57053
COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: Section 29(5) does not apply if a claimant leaves to accept employment with an out of state employer not subject to the jurisdiction of the MESC.
FACTS: Claimant was employed at the YMCA, but resigned to accept permanent full time employment at the YMCA in Muncie, Indiana. He was discharged by the Indiana employer. Claimant returned to Michigan and applied for unemployment compensation.
DECISION: Claimant is disqualified from benefits.
RATIONALE: "In Merren v Employment Security Commission, 3 Mich App 383 (1966) a panel of this court held that the word 'employer' in the phrase in question referred only to Michigan employers. This interpretation was affirmed by an equally divided Supreme Court, Merren v Employment Security Commission, 380 Mich 240 (1968)." "The term employer as used in the Act does not include out of state employers.
The Court of Appeals went on to say that Section 29(5) does not impinge upon Claimant's right to interstate travel . . . and finds without merit Claimant's argument that this construction of the statute renders it unconstitutional as a denial of equal protection of the laws.
6, 15, d5:E