CONCLUSIONES FINALES

4-F

The information on this sheet is intended to provide a general understanding of the subject matter. It does not have the force or effect of law or regulation.

© 2014, State of Michigan, Unemployment Insurance Agency

Form UIA 1982-C

Examples: A worker who becomes unemployed when his or her union goes on strike against the employer is disqualified from receiv- ing unemployment benefits. A worker who works in a plant’s office is disqualified when other workers at the plant, such as production workers, go on strike and cause the plant to shut down, because the office worker is considered “directly involved” in the labor dispute even though the office worker is not a member of the striking union. Likewise, a worker who cannot work because the employer has locked out the workers in the same work establishment, must be disqualified.

Proof at the Hearing: If either the employer or the unemployed

worker appeals the case to an Administrative Law Judge, then the employer must prove that a labor dispute existed at the work estab- lishment. The workers must prove either that there was no labor dispute, or that their unemployment was not due to the labor dispute (for example, that they had been permanently replaced).

For Further Help: The Unemployment Insurance Agency

Advocacy Program can provide assistance to employers and/or unemployed workers in preparing for an Administrative Law Judge hearing on this issue. Call 1-800-638-3994, Item 2.

What the law says: This issue is covered by Section 29(8) of

the Michigan Employment Security Act, and by UIA Administrative Rule 251. The law says that if a worker is unemployed due to a labor dispute involving the worker’s employer, and the worker is “directly involved” or “directly interested” in the labor dispute, the worker must be disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits.

The law says a worker will be considered “directly involved” in a labor dispute if the worker (1) voluntarily stops working while a labor dispute is in progress at the workplace; or (2) voluntarily stops work- ing in sympathy with workers involved in a labor dispute at another workplace; or (3) becomes unemployed when any group of workers in the work establishment are involved in a labor dispute, even if the worker is not a part of that labor union. A worker will be considered “directly interested” in a labor dispute if the worker is helping to finance a labor dispute (other than through the payment of regular union dues), or if the worker would benefit from the settlement of the labor dispute, such as by higher wages, better hours, or other improvement in conditions of employment.

The disqualification will be ended if a worker finds work with another employer, works at least two consecutive weeks with that employer, and earns each week at least what the worker would have received each week in unemployment benefits.

What court cases have said: Court cases have said that the

disqualification must be imposed whether the labor dispute is in the form of a strike by the workers, or (with some exceptions) a lockout by the employer. Cases have also said that the disqualification ends when a worker is permanently replaced, because at that point the worker’s unemployment is due to the replacement and not to the la- bor dispute. However, if a replaced worker is then offered a specific job by the employer, and the union has also been notified by the employer of the vacancy, then the worker who refuses the job would once again become subject to the labor dispute disqualification.

Labor Dispute

5-F

The information on this sheet is intended to provide a general understanding of the subject matter. It does not have the force or effect of law or regulation.

© 2014, State of Michigan, Unemployment Insurance Agency

Form UIA 1982-D What the law says: This issue is covered by Sections 32a, 33,

and 34 of the Michigan Employment Security Act, Unemployment Insurance Agency (UIA) Administrative Rule 270, and the Michigan Compensation Appellate Commission's Administrative Rule 109.

When the UIA issues a “determination,” either the unemployed worker or the employer (whichever party disagrees with the determi- nation) may “protest” the determination and request a redetermina- tion. Also, when the UIA issues a “redetermination,” either party may “appeal” the redetermination to a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge.

To be received “timely” (on time), the signed or verified protest or appeal must be received by the UIA not later than the end of the 30th day after the date of mailing of the determination or redetermi- nation. In counting the 30 days, every day of the week is counted beginning with the day after the determination or redetermination is mailed. Even weekend days and holidays are counted. But if the 30th day is a Saturday, Sunday, legal holiday, or Agency non-work day, then the protest or appeal period ends at the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, legal holiday, or Agency non- work day.

Late Protest of a Determination

If an unemployed worker or employer is late in filing the protest, the UIA must first determine whether there was “good cause” for filing late. Good cause can include inability to file due to illness, or having new information that was not available when the determina- tion or redetermination was issued. If the UIA finds there was good cause for late filing, the UIA will issue a redetermination. If the UIA finds there was not good cause, the UIA will issue a “Denial.” The Denial can be appealed directly to an Administrative Law Judge.

Late Appeal of a Redetermination

If an unemployed worker or employer is late in filing an appeal to an Administrative Law Judge, the case cannot be considered by the Administrative Law Judge. The Administrative Law Judge lacks

legal authority to hold a hearing when an appeal is filed late. The unemployed worker or employer may wish to withdraw (cancel) the appeal and request the UIA to reconsider the matter. The UIA must then find out whether there was “good cause” for the late filing of the appeal. If the UIA finds there was good cause for the late filing, the Agency will issue a redetermination. The redetermination can then be appealed (on time!) to the Administrative Law Judge. If the UIA finds there was not good cause, the office will issue a “denial.” The denial can be appealed (on time!) directly to an Administrative Law Judge.

What Happens When A Denial Is Before the Administrative Law Judge

When a “denial” is before the Administrative Law Judge, the Administrative Law Judge must first decide whether the UIA was correct in issuing the Denial. (Again, the Denial says that there was not good cause for the lateness of the protest or request for reconsideration.) The Administrative Law Judge will probably want to hear details about the late filing and about the main issue in the case. If the Administrative Law Judge decides the UIA was right to issue the Denial, the Administrative Law Judge will issue a decision so stating. If the Administrative Law Judge decides there was good cause for the late filing, the Administrative Law Judge will issue a decision saying that and also deciding the main issue of the case. Either decision can be appealed to the Michigan Compensation Appellate Commission.

What court cases have said: Court cases have said that to

be “filed” on time, the written and signed protest or appeal must be received by the UIA, the Michigan Compensation Appellate Commis- sion or another employment security agency, by the end of the 30th day from the date the determination or redetermination was mailed or personally served. Mailing the protest or appeal is not enough. It must be received by the UIA by the 30th day.