ORS 657.072¹

Employment

• • certain nonprofit services excluded

Notes of Decisions

College which was in fact operated and supervised by Church was not an employer and was exempt from pay­ment of unemploy­ment taxes, notwithstanding that College was run by Board of Trustees and Church had no legal supervision or control over College. Employ­ment Division v. N. W. Christian College, 31 Or App 201, 570 P2d 100 (1977), Sup Ct review denied

Determina­tion that Vic Coburn Evangelistic Associa­tion was not “church” within meaning of this sec­tion was supported by substantial evidence where employer-ministry was not organized as congrega­tion and no particular religious group was involved in its services. Vic Coburn Evangel. Assoc. v. Emp. Div., 35 Or App 655, 582 P2d 51 (1978), Sup Ct review denied

Parochial schools operated, supervised, controlled and principally supported by a church were exempt from unemploy­ment compensa­tion taxes under this sec­tion. Emp. Div. v. Archdiocese of Portland, 42 Or App 421, 600 P2d 926 (1979)

Where employee’s services consisted of picking up articles donated to Union Gospel Mission and referee found that Gospel Mission was associa­tion of churches, employ­ment was exempt from unemploy­ment insurance coverage and conflicting rule was invalid. Miller v. Employ­ment Div., 290 Or 285, 620 P2d 1377 (1980)

Under this sec­tion, defini­tion of covered employ­ment is a complete expression of legislative policy and gives no latitude to create an excep­tion to coverage of statute by agency rule. Miller v. Employ­ment Division, 290 Or 285, 620 P2d 1377 (1980)

Limiting exemp­tion from subject employ­ment to “churches” instead of all religious organiza­tions violates constitu­tional guarantee of religious freedom. Salem College and Academy, Inc. v. Employ­ment Division, 298 Or 471, 695 P2d 25 (1985); Employ­ment Division v. Rogue Valley Youth for Christ, 307 Or 490, 770 P2d 588 (1989)

Minister of church exemp­tion from defini­tion of “employ­ment” also applies for minister of nonchurch religious organiza­tion. Newport Church of the Nazarene v. Hensley, 335 Or 1, 56 P3d 386 (2002)

Law Review Cita­tions

75 OLR 1253 (1996)

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)

Determina­tion of whether claimant is qualified for benefits is made by reference to ORS 657.150 (Amount of benefits) and 657.155 (Benefit eligibility conditions), which require determina­tion of amount of work that claimant performed in “employ­ment” as defined in ORS chapter 657, which, in turn means that exclusions from “employ­ment” set out in ORS 657.040 (Employment) through 657.094 (Employment) must be considered. May Trucking Co. v. Employ­ment Dept., 251 Or App 555, 284 P3d 553 (2012)

Atty. Gen. Opinions

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