Labor dispute disqualification
- exceptions
Source:
Section 657.200 — Labor dispute disqualification; exceptions, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors657.html.
Notes of Decisions
Individual is “directly interested” in labor dispute when individual’s wages, hours or conditions of work will be affected favorably or adversely by outcome. Scoggins v. Morgan, 11 Or App 502, 503 P2d 509 (1972)
When claim is challenged, claimant has at least burden of going forward with evidence until claimant makes prima facie case of requalifying. Scoggins v. Morgan, 11 Or App 502, 503 P2d 509 (1972)
The matter of claimant’s “direct interest” in labor dispute is question of fact. Scoggins v. Morgan, 11 Or App 502, 503 P2d 509 (1972)
This section does not violate equal protection clause, Ore. Const. Art. I, §20. Scoggins v. Morgan, 11 Or App 502, 503 P2d 509 (1972)
Claimant whose work is integrated with that of strikers is prima facie disqualified as member of a class. Scoggins v. Morgan, 11 Or App 502, 503 P2d 509 (1972)
An agreement which imposed a duty on an employer to refrain from retaliating against union members choosing to honor a picket line did not affect the members’ eligibility for unemployment compensation. McKinney v. Employment Div., 21 Or App 730, 537 P2d 126 (1975)
Claimants involved in a “labor dispute” are requalified for compensation if they have no “community of interest” with the striking workers. McIntire v. Employment Div., 24 Or App 67, 544 P2d 173 (1976)
To qualify for unemployment compensation while picketing continues a claimant who has been permanently replaced must further show that (1) he has unilaterally abandoned the strike and (2) he has affirmatively sought reemployment. Colee v. Employment Div., 25 Or App 39, 548 P2d 167 (1976)
Substantial evidence supported the appeals board’s conclusion that the returning strikers continued unemployment was not “due to a labor dispute” but was caused by the fact that their employer no longer had any work available. Skookum Co. Inc., v. Employment Div., 276 Or 303, 554 P2d 520 (1976)
Where waitress-assistant manager left work because employer was unresponsive to her complaints about unsatisfactory food handling and unclean cooking and service facilities, it was error for Employment Board to fail to decide whether there was labor dispute within meaning of this section. Bierly v. Employment Div., 44 Or App 629, 606 P2d 691 (1980)
There was not sufficient evidence to support Employment Appeals Board order that claimants were not entitled to unemployment benefits because they were unemployed “due to a labor dispute.” Cropley v. Employment Division, 72 Or App 93, 694 P2d 1025 (1985), Sup Ct review denied
Claimants, disqualified by this section for participating in labor dispute, were no longer disqualified after union vote to terminate strike and dispute. Foy Martin Sheet Metal v. Employment Div., 77 Or App 454, 713 P2d 662 (1986)
This section does not include members of all locals of same international union as members of same “class.” James E. Frick, Inc. v. Employment Div., 101 Or App 188, 790 P2d 33 (1990)
Even though claimant has obtained other interim, temporary employment after leaving struck employer, this provision precludes individual from receiving unemployment benefits when striking, if person still claims employment rights by union agreement or otherwise. Nicolai-Morgan Products Co. v. Employment Div., 102 Or App 578, 795 P2d 598 (1990), Sup Ct review denied
Where collective bargaining agreement was breached by employer’s unilateral reduction in wages, union members on strike in response to reduction were not disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. Roseburg Forest Products Co. v. Employment Div., 313 Or 301, 835 P2d 889 (1992)
Participation of class members in labor dispute prevents claimant requalification for benefits as of week of participation, but does not act to retroactively deny benefits. Cret v. Employment Dept., 146 Or App 139, 932 P2d 560 (1997)
Up to date