Applegate v. Palladium Pub Co.

7 Citing cases

  1. Parks v. Employment Security Commission

    427 Mich. 224 (Mich. 1986)   Cited 9 times
    Holding that the claimant's failure to abide by city residency requirements and her attempt to sustain the appearance of residency in the city constituted a willful disregard of the employer's interest

    The hearing referee found that appellant was eligible for benefits and not otherwise disqualified. The board of review reversed and, relying on Applegate v Palladium Publishing Co, 95 Mich. App. 299; 290 N.W.2d 128 (1980), lv den 409 Mich. 904 (1980), held that "[m]andatory retirement provisions under a collective bargaining agreement constitute a voluntary leaving of employment. . . ." The Wayne Circuit Court affirmed the decision of the board of review, believing itself bound to that conclusion by Applegate, supra.

  2. Baker v. General Motors Corp.

    420 Mich. 463 (Mich. 1984)   Cited 13 times
    In Baker v Gen Motors Corp, 420 Mich 463, 507; 363 NW2d 602 (1984), aff'd 478 US 621; 106 S Ct 3129; 92 L Ed 2d 504 (1986), our Supreme Court declined to limit the powers of a presiding officer when the statutory language did not expressly provide for such a limit: "Absent any stated legislative limit on the chairperson's power to regulate the course of the hearings... we shall not create one.

    Members Viventi and Cohl looked to the statement of UAW officials who passed the emergency dues amendment and who explained the amendment to the UAW membership to determine the purpose for which the emergency dues were collected. In looking to these statements, members Viventi and Cohl relied upon Applegate v Palladium Publishing Co, 95 Mich. App. 299; 290 N.W.2d 128 (1980), lv den 409 Mich. 904 (1980). Having determined that the purpose of the UAW leadership binds the plaintiffs (UAW members), board members Viventi and Cohl conclude that the emergency dues were intended to fund local labor disputes at GM plants, including the foundry plants which caused the plaintiffs' unemployment.

  3. Baker v. General Motors Corp.

    478 U.S. 621 (1986)   Cited 21 times
    In Baker, the Court considered the validity of a Michigan statute that rendered employees ineligible to receive unemployment compensation if they provided financing for a strike that caused their unemployment.

    In so doing, the UAW represents its members and they must ratify any contract agreed upon by the UAW and GM. Therefore, any `coercion' resulting from the terms of the contract does not make the plaintiffs' action in accord with the contract `involuntary.' As the Court of Appeals said in Applegate v. Palladium Publishing Co., 95 Mich. App. 299, 305; 290 N.W.2d 128 (1980), and we adopt here: "`Action taken by employees under a contract negotiated for them by their authorized agent must be considered their voluntary acts. In effect, plaintiff agreed to [act] pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement.

  4. United Steelworkers v. Johnson

    830 F.2d 924 (8th Cir. 1987)   Cited 7 times
    Holding that South Dakota's "skewed application of its facially neutral test" for unemployment compensation violated the NLRA

    In so doing, the UAW represents its members and they must ratify any contract agreed upon by the UAW and GM. Therefore, any "coercion" resulting from the terms of the contract does not make the plaintiffs' action in accord with the contract "involuntary." As the Court of Appeals said in Applegate v. Palladium Publishing Co., 95 Mich. App. 299, 305; 290 N.W.2d 128 (1980), and we adopt here: "Action taken by employees under a contract negotiated for them by their authorized agent must be considered their voluntary acts. In effect, plaintiff agreed to [act] pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement.

  5. McArthur v. Borman's, Inc.

    200 Mich. App. 686 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 12 times
    In McArthur v. Borman's Inc., 200 Mich. App. 686, 505 N.W.2d 32 (1993), two employees of a supermarket chain were given a choice of accepting $16,000 as part of a buy-out plan by December 31, 1987, or continuing their employment under a new union contract.

    Unlike the claimant in Larson, their choice was not between resignation and no income at all. Further, Larson was limited to its own facts in Applegate v Palladium Publishing Co, 95 Mich. App. 299, 307, n 3; 290 N.W.2d 128 (1980). We also find Copper Range Co, supra, inapplicable.

  6. Warblow v. the Kroger Company

    401 N.W.2d 361 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 3 times

    Since the employer and the union agreed to wage reductions, the question presented is whether the plaintiff is bound by the action taken by his union. The MESC referee in this case relied upon Applegate v. Palladium Publishing Co, 95 Mich. App. 299; 290 N.W.2d 128 (1980), lv den 409 Mich. 904 (1980), in support of his decision to disqualify plaintiff under ยง 29(1)(a) of the act. In Applegate, this Court held that, because a mandatory retirement provision was part of the claimant's union contract, the retiring claimant had left work voluntarily even though he personally wanted to continue working and was forced out by the provision.

  7. Board of Educ. v. Labor Indus

    633 S.W.2d 126 (Mo. Ct. App. 1982)   Cited 14 times

    Compare Kentucky Unemployment Insurance Commission v. Young, 389 S.W.2d 451 (Ky. 1965) (a case similar to McDonnell Douglass, but the court ruled that when retirement is the result of unilateral action by the employer, with no negotiation by the employee, the employee did not leave his job voluntarily). See also Kentucky Unemployment Insurance Commission v. Kroehler Mfg. Co., 352 S.W.2d 212 (Ky.App. 1961) (court agreed with McDonnell Douglass case because the employee's union negotiated the retirement age provision of the contract);Richardson v. Maine Employment Security Commission, 229 A.2d 326 (Me. 1967) (court found retired employee to have left his job "voluntarily without good cause attributable to such employment", but only after noting the jurisdictions that hold to the contrary and discussing the various economic considerations at issue); Applegate v. Palladium Publishing Co., 95 Mich. App. 299, 290 N.W.2d 128 (1980) (court renounced the "subjective approach" of Campbell Soup and decided the case in the manner of McDonnell Douglass). The Kentucky statute provides that a claimant is ineligible if "he has left his most recent suitable work voluntarily without good cause."