Court Opinion

ID: 9557933
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:00:40.573723+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:07:45.335372
License: Public Domain

THORNTON, J.,
specially concurring.
I concur in the result but do so for a different reason.
In my view the statute involved is plain and unambiguous, and therefore we are not authorized to go into its legislative history. ORS 174.010; Curly’s Dairy v. Dept. of Agriculture, 244 Or 15, 415 P2d 740 (1966); West Foods, Inc. v. Morgan, Orr, 16 Or App 613, 519 P2d 1062, Sup Ct review denied (1974).
As to the statements by one legislator and one lobbyist, on which the Employment Division relies, a similar issue was raised in West Foods, Inc. v. Morgan, Orr, supra, also an unemployment compensation case. There the issue was whether the employe’s work on the employer’s mushroom operation was "agricultural labor” and thus exempt from the coverage under the law. Extrinsic evidence (statements by a lobbyist) was offered on behalf of the claimant to show the supposed intention of the legislature in enacting a recent amendment of the statute in issue.
We said in West Foods:
"It is our view that ORS 657.045 as it existed during the period involved here is clear and unambiguous and that therefore resort to legislative history is unnecessary to ascertain its meaning. Franklin v. State Ind. Acc. Com., 202 Or 237, 241, 274 P2d 279 (1954); Umatilla Co. v. City of Pendleton, 9 Or App 55, 57, 495 P2d 287, Sup Ct review denied (1972).” 16 Or App at 618.
I believe this rule should be followed here.