Naumes of Oregon, Inc. v. Employment Division
| Decision Date | 13 October 1975 |
| Parties | NAUMES OF OREGON, INC., Petitioner, v. EMPLOYMENT DIVISION, Ross Morgan, Administrator, Respondent. |
| Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
William G. Purdy, Medford, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief were Frohnmayer & Deatherage, Medford.
John W. Burgess, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Lee Johnson, Atty. Gen., and W. Michael Gillette, Sol. Gen., Salem.
Before SCHWAB, C.J., and FOLEY and THORNTON, JJ.
This is an appeal by petitioner, Naumes of Oregon, Inc., from a decision by a referee of the state Employment Division that petitioner is an 'employer' subject to payment of taxes for unemployment insurance, as required by provisions of the Employment Division Law, ORS ch. 657. Petitioner-Naumes contends that it is within the exclusionary limitations of ORS 657.045(1), (2) (d), exempting the employment of agricultural labor from the Employment Division Law.
Petitioner is an Oregon corporation owned by members of the Naumes family and engaged in the packing of fruit which is primarily grown in pear orchards it manages. The fruit packed by petitioner was grown in various Rogue River Valley orchards. Although petitioner owned none of these orchards, nine of the twelve orchards managed by it are essentially owned by members of the Naumes family and it had written leases with two of the orchards and an oral agreement with another to manage the orchards and pack the fruit. With the exception of two orchards, petitioner performed all of the necessary irrigating, spraying, cultivating, fertilizing, picking and thinning on each of the several orchards.
Petitioner charges the respective owners of the orchards only for the actual cost of its services in managing the orchards. The only profit petitioner receives is a 'packing profit' from the processing of the fruit. The pears from each of the several orchards are kept separate throughout the entire packing and storage process and the proceeds from the sale of the fruit are distributed to each orchard owner according to his respective 'pack out.' It is undisputed that petitioner's pack consisted of more than 50 percent of the fruit from the orchards it managed.
Petitioner contends that the services performed in managing the orchards from which more than 50 percent of the fruit it packs originates renders it an 'operator' of the orchards exempt from the Employment Division Law.
ORS 657.045 provides as follows:
'(1) 'Employment' does not include agricultural labor.
'(2) 'Agricultural labor' includes all services performed:
'* * *
'(d) In the employ of the operator or group of operators of a farm or farms (or a cooperative organization of which such operator or operators are members) in handling, planting, drying, packing, packaging, processing, freezing, grading, storing or delivering to storage or to market or to a carrier for transportation to market, in its unmanufactured state, any agricultural or horticultural commodity, but only if such operator or group of operators produced more than one-half of the commodity, as measured by volume, weight or other customary means, with respect to which such service is performed.
'* * *.'
Subsection (4) defines 'farms' to include fruit farms and orchards.
The referee concluded that the legislature did not intend to exclude from unemployment insurance coverage, services performed in a packing house when the employer does not own the orchards or have a direct proprietary interet in the orchards. In reaching his determination that petitioner was not an operator of the fruit orchards, the referee placed great weight on the supposition that the periodic unemployment which tends to accompany the seasonal work engaged in by packing house employes is the very problem which led to enactment of this remedial legislation.
Since the facts are undisputed, the interpretation of their legal effect becomes one of law. Kirkpatrick v. Peet, 247 Or. 204, 428 P.2d 405 (1967). The issue then is whether the referee correctly determined that petitioner was not an operator within the statute. We conclude that the referee erred in his interpretation of the agricultural labor exclusion and that petitioner was the operator of the fruit orchards it managed.
In so holding we are not unmindful of the well-established principle that the Employment Division Law was designed to remedy the economic condition of the unemployed working man and is to be liberally construed to the end that employes receive the benefits intended. Puget Sound B. & D. Co. v. S.U.C.C., 168 Or. 614, 126 P.2d 37 (1942); Just-A-Mere-Farm v. Peet, 247 Or. 413, 430 P.2d 987 (19...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Benson v. City of Portland
...meaning. Nicolai-Morgan Products Co. v. Employment Div., 102 Or.App. 578, 582, 795 P.2d 598 (1990); Naumes of Ore. v. Employment Div., 23 Or.App. 57, 61, 541 P.2d 141 (1975). The ordinary meaning of "reoccupy" can be discerned from treatises that have defined the term and from statutes and ......
-
Fletcher v. State Acc. Ins. Fund
...of a statute, unless defined in the statute, are to be construed in accordance with their ordinary meaning. Naumes of Ore. v. Employment Div., 23 Or.App. 57, 541 P.2d 141 (1975); Piazza v. Clackamas Water District, 21 Or.App. 469, 535 P.2d 554 (1975); Clatsop County v. Morgan, 19 Or.App. 17......
-
Carter v. J.P. King and Sons, Inc.
...operator of a farm even though it neither owns nor leases a single farm? We answer affirmatively. In Naumes of Oregon, Inc. v. Employment Division, 23 Or.App. 57, 541 P.2d 141 (1975), a corporation which managed fruit orchards it did not own was granted the exemption for its packing house e......
-
Nicolai-Morgan Products Co. v. Employment Div., NICOLAI-MORGAN
...rights." In the absence of a statutory definition, we construe a term in accordance with its ordinary meaning. Naumes of Ore. v. Employment Div., 23 Or.App. 57, 541 P.2d 141, rev. den. (1975). A right to re-employment is an employment right in the ordinary sense; so is a right to have acces......