DENIAL PERIOD, Layoff notice, Collective bargaining agreement
CITE AS: Hofmeister v Armada Area Schools, Macomb Circuit Court No. 96-3916AE (November 20, 1996) lv den Mich App No. 199806 (June 9, 1997).
Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Patricia Hofmeister
Employer: Armada Area Schools
Docket No. B93-00816-R01-131220
CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: Notice of prospective tentative layoff does not negate reasonable assurance contained in collective bargaining agreement.
FACTS: Claimant was a school teacher during the 1991-1992 school year. Her employment was governed by a collective bargaining agreement. The school district was operating with a deficit. A millage election was scheduled for June 8, 1992. As a contingency, teacher layoffs were discussed and the union was so notified.
The June 8, 1992 millage increase failed. Another election was scheduled for September 14, 1992. On June 12, 1992 the school board sent a letter to the union that listed the claimant and others as employees who would be laid off if the millage again failed. On August 19, 1992, pursuant to the bargaining agreement, a letter was sent to the claimant notifying her she would be laid off on September 29, 1992 if the millage did not pass. But, the millage did pass and on September 15, 1992 the claimant and others were notified they were no longer subject to the possibility of layoff.
DECISION: The claimant was subject to the school denial period set forth in Section 27(i)(1).
RATIONALE: The claimant's employment was governed by a contract, the CBA. The CBA provided for employment until layoff notices were provided and became effective. Layoff notices were not provided until August 19, 1992. The claimant would not have been laid off until September 29, 1992. Thus, during the period for which claimant was seeking unemployment benefits she had a contract for the 1992-93 school year, which provided reasonable assurance. Consequently, she was not entitled to benefits.
21, 16, d12: B