2017 ORS 657.190¹
Suitable work
  • factors to consider

In determining whether any work is suitable for an individual, the Director of the Employment Department shall consider, among other factors, the degree of risk involved to the health, safety and morals of the individual, the physical fitness and prior training, experience and prior earnings of the individual, the length of unemployment and prospects for securing local work in the customary occupation of the individual and the distance of the available work from the residence of the individual. [Amended by 2001 c.657 §2; 2009 c.21 §55]

Notes of Decisions

The amount set by claimant as a min­i­mum acceptable salary in her customary occupa­tion indicated she was not actively seeking and unable to obtain suitable work. Fojardo v. Employ­ment Div., 20 Or App 390, 532 P2d 29 (1975)

This sec­tion vests reasonable discre­tion in administrator in determining whether particular job constitutes suitable work. Vail v. Employ­ment Division, 30 Or App 365, 567 P2d 129 (1977), Sup Ct review denied

Employ­ment Division had authority to determine by rule that worker who quits job because of wage reduc­tion is not entitled to unemploy­ment benefits if post-reduc­tion wages are comparable to wages earned by majority of workers performing similar work in same locality. Employ­ment Division v. Asher, 86 Or App 350, 739 P2d 69 (1987)

Change in worker’s per­sonal financial circumstances that makes rate of pay inadequate is not factor that may be considered by board in determining whether worker left suitable employ­ment without good cause. Employ­ment Division v. Pelchat, 108 Or App 395, 816 P2d 636 (1991). But see Howard v. Employ­ment Dept., 166 Or App 39, 996 P2d 527 (2000)

Change in rate of pay for claimant’s job was not per­sonal financial circumstance and should have been considered in determining whether work was suitable. Klumb v. Employ­ment Division, 123 Or App 295, 858 P2d 1354 (1993)

In determining whether claimant left suitable employ­ment, per­sonal financial circumstances of claimant are relevant considera­tion. Howard v. Employ­ment Dept., 166 Or App 39, 996 P2d 527 (2000)

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)

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

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 657—Unemployment Insurance, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors657.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2017, Chapter 657, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano657.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
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.