Benefit eligibility conditions
- rules
Source:
Section 657.155 — Benefit eligibility conditions; rules, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors657.html.
Notes of Decisions
Claimant was ineligible for unemployment benefits when she refused night shift work because of need to care for her sick husband. York v. Morgan, 16 Or App 76, 517 P2d 301 (1973)
Where a claimant demonstrates that school is secondary to suitable employment he should not be denied unemployment compensation. Minniti v. Employment Div., 18 Or App 44, 523 P2d 1060 (1974)
The amount set by claimant as a minimum acceptable salary in her customary occupation indicated she was not actively seeking and unable to obtain suitable work. Fojardo v. Employment Div., 20 Or App 390, 532 P2d 29 (1975)
An employee on maternity leave who seeks to return to work under contract is “actively seeking work” within this section. Polk County Intermediate Educ. Dist. v. Employment Div., 24 Or App 169, 544 P2d 1073 (1976)
Claimant did not lose unemployment benefits when, following established practice of Employment Division, claimants in particular class of which he was member did not have to check with placement office each week. Anderson v. Employment Div., 24 Or App 503, 546 P2d 779 (1976)
The Unemployment Appeals Board erred in denying claimant benefits on ground that he refused suitable work where work refused was not in the claimant’s usual trade and OAR 471-30-070 allows claimant six weeks to find work in usual trade. Gredvig v. Employment Div., 24 Or App 511, 546 P2d 791 (1976)
The claimant’s unavailability for work due to illness on one day does not preclude him from unemployment benefits for that week. Employment Div. v. Park, 27 Or App 395, 556 P2d 149 (1976)
Where employee subject to layoff was given definite date of return to work in one month, and employee visited relatives in Wisconsin and filed courtesy report at unemployment office there, employee was “available for work” within meaning of this section and was not required to further conduct act of search for work. Scotch v. Employment Division, 31 Or App 941, 573 P2d 723 (1977)
There is no requirement that testimony of credible claimant regarding willingness to place work ahead of schooling must be supported by additional evidence. Petro v. Employment Division, 32 Or App 17, 573 P2d 1250 (1978)
Referee must make specific findings regarding credibility of claimant. Petro v. Employment Division, 32 Or App 17, 573 P2d 1250 (1978)
No presumption of unavailability, under this section, arises out of school attendance. Petro v. Employment Division, 32 Or App 17, 573 P2d 1250 (1978); Dach v. Employment Division, 32 Or App 433, 574 P2d 684 (1978)
Where pregnant claimant was given leave of absence by employer, following information supplied to employer by claimant’s doctor that she was able to do sedentary or nonstrenuous work, she was available for sedentary or nonstrenuous work and entitled to compensation under this section. Kibble v. Employment Division, 36 Or App 243, 584 P2d 340 (1978)
Leaving one job to return to school as well as take more attractive employment which terminated unexpectedly in one week was not good cause for terminating first job where there was nothing about first job which would cause reasonably prudent person to quit, and claimant was not entitled to receive compensation chargeable to first employer. Waide v. Employment Div., 38 Or App 121, 589 P2d 1138 (1979)
Where claimant performed uncompensated services for a corporation of which he was an officer and shareholder and through which he sought employment, this did not mean he was not “available” or “looking for work” under this section. Taylor v. Employment Div., 286 Or 711, 597 P2d 780 (1979)
Where petitioner lost job when school district funds were cut, continued to seek work of same type, but declined to interview for employment with school located some distance from petitioner’s house, there was not substantial evidence to support determination that school was within petitioner’s labor market. McCann v. Emp. Div., 53 Or App 102, 630 P2d 1335 (1981)
Receipt of workers’ compensation benefits does not give rise to presumption that claimant is unable to work for purposes of receiving unemployment benefits. Edwards v. Employment Division, 63 Or App 521, 664 P2d 1151 (1983)
Claimant-nurse was not “available” for work where she refused, in order to care for son, to work swing shift. Doctor v. Employment Division, 76 Or App 650, 711 P2d 159 (1985), Sup Ct review denied
Administrative rule defining “available for work” as used in this section does not contain requirement that immigrants have INS work authorization before they may be considered to be available for work. Carillo v. Employment Division, 88 Or App 204, 744 P2d 1304 (1987)
Up to date