Claimant was employed as a salesman by a copartnership at a regular salary. The partnership was composed of three men, one of whom, R. L. Keppen, managed the business, for which he was paid a salary of $175 per month, independently of his share of the profits of the partnership. The other partners received no salary, being dependent upon partnership dividends for their return upon the investment. If Keppen could be considered an employee of the firm during the time· of the claimant's employment, then there would have been compliance with the Michigan Unemployment Compensation Act, which required that a firm, in order to come within its scope, must have employed eight or more persons for twenty or more calendar weeks in each of the years during which the claimant was employed by it. Held, a member of a partnership cannot be an employee thereof within the meaning of this unemployment compensation act, even though he performs labor for it and receives a salary apart from his share of the profits, because he cannot be, at the same time employer and employee, and because a partner in rendering services to the partnership is only carrying out his obligations as a member thereof, rather than acting as an employee. Auten v. Michigan Unemployment Compensation Commission, 310 Mich. 453, 17 N.W. (2d) 249 (1945).
John S. Dobson S.Ed.,
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION ACT-TEST OF EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP,
Mich. L. Rev.
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol44/iss5/27