Section R. 421.251 - Labor disputeRule 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.Mich. Admin. Code R. 421.251
1979 AC; 1980 AACS; 1986 AACS