Case Name: NATIONAL MAINTENANCE CONTRACTORS OF OREGON, INC., Petitioner, v. EMPLOYMENT DEPARTMENT, Respondent
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 2009-03-19
Citations: 226 Or. App. 600
Docket Number: U20847; A136311
Parties: NATIONAL MAINTENANCE CONTRACTORS OF OREGON, INC., Petitioner, v. EMPLOYMENT DEPARTMENT, Respondent.
Judges: Before Edmonds, Presiding Judge, and Wollheim, Judge, and Sercombe, Judge.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 226
Pages: 600–601

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted July 3, 2008,
affirmed March 19,
petition for review denied July 9, 2009 (346 Or 363)
NATIONAL MAINTENANCE CONTRACTORS OF OREGON, INC., Petitioner, v. EMPLOYMENT DEPARTMENT, Respondent.
Employment Department
U20847; A136311
204 P3d 162
John Glowney argued the cause for petitioner. On the brief were P.K. Runkles-Pearson and Stoel Rives LLP.
Richard Wasserman waived appearance for respondent.
Before Edmonds, Presiding Judge, and Wollheim, Judge, and Sercombe, Judge.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Petitioner seeks judicial review of an order of the Employment Department that denied petitioner relief from certain unemployment insurance charges under ORS 657.471. Petitioner argues that it should have been relieved of the charges because its franchisees are not petitioner's "employees" for purposes of ORS chapter 657. Petitioner submits that "this Court already is considering whether [petitioner's] franchisees are employees in another pending case [involving the same parties], (A134773)" and "the result in this case should follow this Court's decision in that matter." In Employment Dept. v. National Maintenance Contractors, 226 Or App 473, 204 P3d 151 (2009), we concluded that petitioner's franchisees provided services to petitioner for remuneration and were therefore within the legislature's definition of employment in ORS 657.030. For that reason, we remanded the order for the administrative law judge to consider whether the franchisees were independent contractors. Id. at 492.
Given our remand in case A134773, petitioner is not, at this time, entitled to relief of unemployment insurance charges. Accordingly, we affirm.
Affirmed.