Current through Vol. 24-16, September 15, 2024
Rule 251.
(1) When
an employer believes that the unemployment of any of its workers in Michigan is
due to a labor dispute in any establishment operated by such employer within
the United States, or is due to shutdown operations caused by such labor
dispute, the employer shall file, within five business days from the time the
unemployment begins, a written statement with the Michigan Employment Security
Commission, 7310 Woodward Avenue, Detroit, Michigan 48202, or with any branch
office of the commission, setting forth all of the following information:
(a) That there is unemployment in Michigan
due to a labor dispute or to shutdown operations caused by such labor
dispute.
(b) The location of the
plant or plants and division or divisions operated by the employing unit within
the United States in which the labor dispute or shutdown operations occurred
which caused such unemployment.
(c)
The location of any other plant or plants and division or divisions operated by
the employing unit in the state of Michigan in which there is no labor dispute,
but in which there is unemployment due to the labor dispute or to shutdown
operations caused by such labor dispute.
(d) A statement of the principal issues
involved. If any of the information specified in subdivisions (a) to (d) of
this subrule is not available for inclusion in the written statement required
within five business days, a supplemental statement incorporating such
information shall be filed as soon as the information is available.
(2) To disqualify an individual
for benefits because of being directly interested and consequently being
directly involved in a labor dispute, the commission must find that the
resolution of such labor dispute may reasonably be expected to affect the
individual's wages, hours, or other conditions of employment. In the absence of
substantial and preponderating evidence to the contrary, a "reasonable
expectation" of an effect shall be deemed to exist if any 1 of the following 3
circumstances is found to be applicable:
(a)
If it is established that there is, in the particular establishment or
employing unit, a practice or custom or contractual obligation to extend,
within a reasonable period, to members of the individual's grade or class of
workers, in the establishment in which the individual is or was last employed,
changes in terms and conditions of employment which are substantially similar
or related to some or all of the changes in terms and conditions of employment
which are made for the workers among whom the labor dispute exists which has
caused the individual's total or partial unemployment. For the purpose of
determining the "practice or custom" of an establishment or employing unit, as
this phrase is used in this subdivision, the collective bargaining history of
the employing unit shall be examined for the period of existence of the
employing unit, but for not more than 5 years preceding the inception of the
current labor dispute. A "practice or custom" shall be deemed to exist if, and
only if, the employing unit has always, during the period examined, extended
changes in terms and conditions of employment to members of the individual's
grade or class of workers which were substantially similar or related to some
or all of the changes in terms and conditions of employment which were made for
the workers among whom the current labor dispute exists or existed. The phrase
"extend within a reasonable period," as used in this subdivision, means that
the establishment or employing unit has, by past practice, custom, or contract,
actually effectuated substantially similar or related changes for members of
the individual's grade or class of workers within 90 days after changes were
made for the workers among whom there exists or existed the labor dispute which
caused the unemployment in question. The requirement in this subdivision that
the changes in terms and conditions shall have been substantially similar or
related does not mean that the changes extended each time, during the period
examined, to members of the individual's grade or class of workers shall have
been identical.
(b) If it is
established that 1 of the issues in or purposes of such labor dispute is to
obtain a change in the terms and conditions of employment for members of the
individual's grade or class of workers in the establishment in which the
individual is or was last employed.
(c) If such labor dispute exists at a time
when the collective bargaining agreement, which covers the individual's grade
or class of workers in the establishment in which the individual is or was last
employed and the workers in another establishment of the same employing unit
who are actively participating in such labor dispute, has expired, has been
opened by mutual consent, or may, by its terms, be modified, supplemented, or
replaced. Notwithstanding the applicability of subdivision (a), (b), or (c) of
this subrule, an individual shall not be deemed to be directly interested in a
labor dispute if there is substantial and preponderating evidence which
indicates that there is no reasonable expectation that the individual's wages,
hours, or other conditions of employment may be affected by the resolution of
the current labor dispute.
(3) The term "establishment," as applied to
an employing unit engaged in construction activities at different locations,
shall be construed, for the purpose of adjudicating building trade labor
disputes, as follows:
(a) Each separate
project of such employing unit, whether a general contractor or subcontractor,
shall be considered a separate "establishment," within the meaning of this term
as used in section 29(8) of the act, if the project is a separate activity
insofar as the employees are concerned for the purpose of employment. In
determining which construction activities of an employing unit shall constitute
a separate project and consequently a separate establishment, the following
factors, among others, shall be considered:
(i) Whether the employees for each project
were hired for that job and are to be terminated upon its completion.
(ii) Whether the employees of an employing
unit operating different projects worked primarily on 1 project rather than
interchangeably on other projects.
(iii) Whether separate building schedules
were followed.
(iv) Whether
construction accounting procedures were such that contracts were bid on for
each project on the basis, for example, of separate cost accounting, separate
tax computations, or separate payrolls.
(b) Each employing unit engaged on a project,
such as general contractor or subcontractor, is considered to be a separate
establishment.
(4) For
the purpose of determining whether the payment of union dues shall be deemed
financing under section 29(8)(a)(ii) of the act, all of the following
provisions shall be applicable:
(a) The
payment of regular union dues in amounts and for purposes established before
any unemployment due to a labor dispute shall not be construed as financing,
even if such dues are used for a strike fund or other financing of the labor
dispute.
(b) The payment of regular
union dues which are established or increased after there is unemployment due
to such labor dispute and which are used for the purpose of financing the
current labor dispute shall be construed as financing the labor
dispute.
(c) The payment of a
special assessment into a fund established at any time and used for the purpose
of financing the current labor dispute shall be construed as financing a labor
dispute.
(d) The term "special
assessment," for the purpose of this rule, means a payment made by a union
member to his or her union to establish a fund for a specific purpose other
than the payment of the ordinary administrative expenses of the
union.
(e) The term "regular union
dues," for the purpose of this rule and section 29(8)(a)(ii) of the act, means
any payment, other than a special assessment, made by a union member on a
continuing basis to his or her union.