Court Opinion

ID: 9625538
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 07:43:55.031508+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:10.692809
License: Public Domain

SCHWAB, C. J.,
concurring.
I agree with the reasoning and the result of the majority opinion, but wish to emphasize my understanding of the relatively narrow scope of our holding.
To qualify for unemployment compensation benefits, a claimant must be "actively seeking and unable to obtain suitable work.” ORS 657.155(1)(c). "Actively seeking” is apparently to be given its ordi*509nary meaning; "suitable work” is very generally defined in ORS 657.190 and 657.195.
The broad question presented by this case is whether workers laid off seasonally who expect to and are holding themselves available to go back to work for the same employer must, under the above statutes, seek temporary employment in other fields in order to qualify for unemployment benefits. I say that is a "broad question” because of the large amount of seasonal employment in Oregon in areas like logging and agriculture.
The statutes being inconclusive on this broad question, we asked the Employment Division to furnish us with their relevant regulations in a supplemental brief. In response, the Division cites only OAR 471-30-070:
"In determining whether an individual has good cause for refusing to apply for * * * work * * * the Administrator may * * * rule that a claimant did not have good cause * * * if he has had six weeks or more to seek out work in his customary and usual occupation * * *.”
The Division explains that this means:
"* * * After six weeks of unemployment, we expect that they [i.e., claimants] will expand their work search to include other fields in which they have prior experience or training.
<<* * * [Thus, a person in the present claimant’s position] should have expanded his work search to include other truck driving jobs for industries which do not close down during January, February and March * *
However, as the majority correctly states, the record is clear that the local personnel who processed this claim felt that generally a person in claimant’s position sufficiently complies with ORS 657.155(1)(c) by holding himself available to go back to work for the same employer at the end of the seasonal layoff. Apparently, either the local personnel are unaware of the interpretation placed on OAR 471-30-070 by the Emp*510loyment Division, or they are operating autonomously. On this record, I join in holding claimant entitled to benefits.
But I do not understand this decision to be a resolution of the broad question noted above. In other words, I do not think we are holding all loggers are per se entitled to three months of unemployment benefits during the winter layoff. On a different record, requiring a search for temporary employment in other industries might well be reasonable.
I also agree that claimant failed to establish good cause for the appeals that he filed late under the very limited scope of our review of that issue.