Chrysler Corporation v. Losada , 376 Mich. 209 ( 1965 )

O’Hara, J.

(dissenting). I am constrained to disagree with my writing colleagues. To me remand in this case is not required and nothing could be added to the record already made which would not be merely cumulative. The suitability test as to the work offered was inherent in the testimony of claimant as to his reasons for refusal:

“Q. I’ll read that: ‘I refused the job offer because if taken I would lose all rights to recall in the trim shop.’ That right?

“A. That’s right. * * *

“Q. You didn’t want to take this job now for what reason again?

“A. Because I wanted to stay in my own department in my own line of work.

“Q. I see, if you had gone on the punch press and the spot welder job or whatever it was, you would,—

“A. They told us directly we’d never be called back to our own department — any other job.

“Q. Anything else you want to say about this?

“A. I don’t think it’s fair in a way.

“Q. What’s not fair?

“A. To be disqualified for that reason.

“Q. You think you had a good reason for turning the job down, is that it?

“A. Yes, I do. I lost two weeks’ vacation pay by doing it. I only had to work until the end of the month.

“Q. And you would have gotten qualified for vacation pav ?

“A. $200. Yes.

“Q. OK — thank you very much. * * *

“The Referee: You feel now that you’ve had a fair chance to tell me why you turned it down. Now the way I get it—

“The Claimant: Basically, I just have the one reason. I like that type of work, I’m trained for it and I feel that—

“The Referee: You’d lose seniority if you took—

“The Claimant: Not only the seniority, I’d never have a chance to get back to my own line of work.

“The Referee: By the way, how old are you, sir?

“The Claimant: 36.

“The Referee: How many years have you had in the cutter—

“The Claimant: Practically all of my time there at Dodge.

“The Referee: Anything else you’d like to say because they will replay this record in Detroit for the benefit of the others.

“The Claimant: No, I think that covers it.

“The Referee: OK. You feel you’ve had a fair hearing?

“The Claimant: Yes, Ido.”

Apparently Judge Hughes, as I do, found the record complete and he proceeded to do what Mr. Justice Souris says should be done:

“Without quarrelling with the facts found by the appeal board, which were the same facts found by the commission and the referees, the court is of the opinion that the hoard committed an error, in law, in reversing the decision of the referee.” (Emphasis supplied.)

The order of the circuit court should be affirmed. Costs to appellant.

Dethmers and Kelly, JJ., concurred with O’Hara, J.