ORS 657.200¹
Labor dispute disqualification
  • exceptions

(1) An individual is disqualified for benefits for any week with respect to which the Director of the Employment Department finds that the unemployment of the individual is due to a labor dispute that is in active progress at the factory, establishment or other premises at which the individual is or was last employed or at which the individual claims employment rights by union agreement or otherwise.

(2) When an employer operates two or more premises in the conduct of business they shall be considered one premises for the purposes of this chapter if the labor dispute at one makes it impossible or impractical to conduct work at the others or in a normal manner.

(3) This section does not apply if it is shown to the satisfaction of the director that the individual:

(a) Is unemployed due to a lockout, as defined in ORS 662.205 (Definitions for ORS 662.205 to 662.225), at the factory, establishment or other premises at which the individual was last employed; or

(b)(A) Is not participating in or financing or directly interested in the labor dispute that caused the unemployment of the individual; and

(B) Does not belong to a grade or class of workers of which, immediately before the commencement of the labor dispute, there were members employed at the premises at which the labor dispute occurs, any of whom are participating in or financing or directly interested in the dispute.

(4) An individual who meets all other applicable benefit eligibility requirements of this chapter is not disqualified from receipt of benefits by this section if:

(a) The individual was laid off from the employer prior to commencement of the labor dispute, did not work for the employer more than seven days during the 21 calendar days immediately prior to the commencement of the labor dispute and meets the requirements of subsection (3)(b)(A) of this section; or

(b) During the labor dispute, the individual’s job or position is filled by the employer hiring a permanent replacement and the following conditions are met:

(A) The individual subsequently unilaterally abandons the labor dispute and affirmatively seeks reemployment with the employer; and

(B) The individual meets the requirements of subsection (3)(b)(A) of this section.

(5) An individual who maintains membership in a labor union or who continues to pay labor union dues does not violate the provisions of subsection (3)(b)(A) of this section, for the purpose of subsection (4) of this section. [Amended by 1985 c.133 §1; 1989 c.1095 §1; 2007 c.600 §1]

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)

Chapter 657

Notes of Decisions

An individual who performs services for remunera­tion is an employee, and per­son or organiza­tion for whom services are performed is an employer under terms of Employ­ment Division Law even if remunera­tion is paid indirectly rather than directly unless employer shows that some statutory exclusion applies. Lectro Lift, Inc. v. Morgan, 14 Or App 316, 513 P2d 526 (1973)

Mere act of incorporating as professional corpora­tion does not, by itself, create employer-employee rela­tionship for purposes of this chapter. Peterson v. Employ­ment Division, 82 Or App 371, 728 P2d 95 (1986)

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Determining employer of musicians' group, (1972) Vol 35, p 1306

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 657—Unemployment Insurance, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­Archive/­2007ors657.­pdf (2007) (last ac­cessed Feb. 12, 2009).
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2007, Chapter 657, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­657ano.­htm (2007) (last ac­cessed Feb. 12, 2009).
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent. Currency Information