Case Name: ELLIS, Petitioner, v. EMPLOYMENT DIVISION et al, Respondents
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1974-10-24
Citations: 31 Or. App. 385
Docket Number: No. 76-AB-1380, 76-AB-1380A and 77-5-876EB, CA 7963 and 8364
Parties: ELLIS, Petitioner, v. EMPLOYMENT DIVISION et al, Respondents.
Judges: Before Schwab, Chief Judge, and Thornton and Johnson, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 31
Pages: [385]–[387]

Head Matter:
Argued September 28,
affirmed October 24, 1974
ELLIS, Petitioner, v. EMPLOYMENT DIVISION et al, Respondents.
(No. 76-AB-1380, 76-AB-1380A and 77-5-876EB, CA 7963 (control) and 8364)
570 P2d 427
Magar E. Magar, Portland, argued the cause and filed the brief for petitioner.
W. Benny Won, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent Employment Division. With him on the brief were James A. Redden, Attorney General, and Al J. Laue, Solicitor General, Salem.
No appearance for respondent Manpower Inc.
Before Schwab, Chief Judge, and Thornton and Johnson, Judges.
PER CURIAM.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Claimant appeals from two orders of the Employment Appeals Board, both of which affirmed referees' decisions which in turn affirmed administrators' decisions denying claimant unemployment compensation. Each order covers a different period. As to the first period, claimant was declared ineligible because there was suitable work available which without good reason he chose not to accept. As to the second period, claimant was denied benefits because he refused to accept work paying less than an hourly rate which he was not warranted in demanding and thus was not available for suitable employment. There was ample evidence to support the findings of the Employment Appeals Board in both instances.
Affirmed.