ORS 657.265¹
Notice of claim filing to employing units

When a claimant files an initial claim or an additional claim, the Employment Department promptly shall give written notice of the claim filing to the claimant’s most recent employing unit. If the claimant did not receive or will not receive remuneration in an amount greater than or equal to four times the claimant’s weekly benefit amount from the claimant’s most recent employing unit, the Employment Department shall notify the claimant’s next previous employing unit or units until the Employment Department has notified those of the claimant’s former employing units which, in the aggregate, have paid or will pay the claimant remuneration in an amount which is equal to or exceeds four times the claimant’s weekly benefit amount. [Amended by 1961 c.252 §3; 1965 c.210 §1; 1967 c.435 §3; 1969 c.597 §177; 1971 c.77 §1; 1975 c.257 §6; 1977 c.295 §6; 1981 c.77 §11; 1981 c.751 §3; 1983 c.395 §1; 1983 c.508 §7; 1983 c.522 §1; 1993 c.778 §4]

Notes of Decisions

The applicant's decision not to have mail forwarded does not excuse a failure to file timely notices of ap­peal. Anderson v. Employ­ment Div., 24 Or App 503, 546 P2d 779 (1976)

Part-time college instructor, who was found ineligible for benefits under ORS 657.155 (Benefit eligibility conditions) because of insufficient availability for work, waived notice of ap­peal under this sec­tion where notice of hearing listed eligibility under ORS 657.155 (Benefit eligibility conditions) as issue and parties litigated issue without objec­tion. Kovach v. Employ­ment Division, 35 Or App 609, 582 P2d 460 (1978)

Where evidence es­tab­lished that only seven days elapsed between mailing date of notice of Employ­ment Appeals Board hearing and hearing and that claimant failed to receive notice because out of town on bona fide job search, claimant as matter of law es­tab­lished good cause for failure to appear at hearing. Bursell v. Employ­ment Div., 71 Or App 729, 694 P2d 558 (1984)

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