Employment generally
- educational, hospital, nursing, student service exclusions
Source:
Section 657.030 — Employment generally; educational, hospital, nursing, student service exclusions, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors657.html.
Notes of Decisions
Words “service” and “remuneration,” as used in this section, are broad descriptive terms evidencing legislative intent to give law broad and liberal coverage. Petrol Stops NW v. Morgan, 10 Or App 620, 501 P2d 341 (1972); Gross v. Employment Department, 237 Or App 671, 240 P3d 1130 (2010)
Owner-operator cab driver is not engaged in employment relationship with cab company where company does not remunerate driver but instead, driver pays fee to cab company for certain services. DeRoos v. Employment Division, 65 Or App 578, 672 P2d 63 (1983)
Where petitioner performed services for remuneration, even though SAIF paid his wages as part of vocational rehabilitation, services were “employment” under this section. White v. Employment Division, 72 Or App 163, 694 P2d 1009 (1985), as modified by 77 Or App 35, 711 P2d 196 (1985)
Where business signed lease with hair stylists allowing them to set their own hours, work elsewhere, schedule their own clients and pay $300 per month for rent, utilities, telephone and some maintenance unless they earned less than $1000, in which case they would pay 30% of earnings, business was not employer of stylists. Employment Division v. Shear Creations, 94 Or App 107, 764 P2d 941 (1988)
Where Federal Unemployment Tax Act does not allow exemption for religious organizations other than churches and church-related organizations, state must tax exempted churches and related organizations to avoid unconstitutional discrimination. Employment Div. v. Rogue Valley Youth for Christ, 307 Or 490, 770 P2d 588 (1989)
Where petitioner distributes appliances to retail stores but has no control over how sales are made and at what prices or whether spiff program will be implemented at particular retail establishment, service to petitioner is too indirect to constitute “employment” and petitioner is not subject to payroll taxes for unemployment insurance. North Pacific Supply Co., Inc. v. Emp. Div., 100 Or App 553, 787 P2d 495 (1990), Sup Ct review denied
Employment Division rule classifying claimant’s receipt of back pay awards for weeks claimant was out of work as employment conflicts with this section and is invalid. Employment Div. v. Ring, 104 Or App 713, 803 P2d 766 (1990), Sup Ct review denied
Corporation and person acting solely as corporate director are not in employer-employee relationship. Necanicum Investment Co. v. Employment Department, 345 Or 138, 190 P3d 368 (2008)
Taxicab company contracted with city and other entities to provide transportation services, and maintained fleet of taxicab drivers that provided “services” to company and on behalf of company to enable company to fulfill contractual obligations. Even though drivers were generally paid directly by customers rather than by company, drivers provided services for “remuneration,” as used in this section, because services were performed for benefit of company. Broadway Cab LLC v. Employment Department, 265 Or App 254, 336 P3d 12 (2014), aff’d 358 Or 431, 364 P3d 338 (2015)
Attorney General Opinions
Determining employer of musicians’ group, (1972) Vol 35, p 1306; discrimination in medical benefits provided by employers and labor unions to employees and spouses with respect to pregnancy, childbirth, etc., (1977) Vol 38, p 1239
Up to date