School Dist. 24J, Marion County (Salem School Dist.) v. Employment Division
| Decision Date | 27 June 1977 |
| Citation | 29 Or.App. 897,565 P.2d 1102 |
| Parties | SCHOOL DISTRICT 24J, MARION COUNTY, Oregon (SALEM SCHOOL DISTRICT), Petitioner, v. EMPLOYMENT DIVISION, and Joan B. Barker, Respondents. SCHOOL DISTRICT 24J, MARION COUNTY, Oregon (SALEM SCHOOL DISTRICT), Petitioner, v. EMPLOYMENT DIVISION, and Helen A. Ebert, Respondents. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, MULTNOMAH COUNTY, Oregon, Petitioner, v. EMPLOYMENT DIVISION, and Mathilda A. Hunter, Respondents. |
| Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Michael L. McDonough, Salem, argued the cause for petitioner School District 24J, Marion County. Donna M. Cameron, Portland, argued the cause for petitioner School District No. 1, Multnomah County. With them on the joint brief were Paulus & Callaghan, Salem, and Miller, Anderson, Nash, Yerke & Wiener and David W. Morthland, Portland.
James C. Rhodes, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, argued the cause for respondent Employment Division. With him on the brief were James A. Redden, Atty. Gen., and W. Michael Gillette, Sol. Gen., Salem.
No appearance for respondents Joan B. Barker, Helen A. Ebert and Mathilda A. Hunter.
Before THORNTON, P. J., and TANZER and RICHARDSON, JJ.
These three consolidated unemployment compensation appeals involve the same issue the interpretation of a 1975 amendment to the Unemployment Compensation Law which purported to authorize benefits under certain circumstances to noninstructional employes of public schools.
The essential facts are as follows:
Claimants Barker and Ebert are employed by petitioner School District No. 24J. Claimant Barker has been employed as a Library Aide III since August 29, 1974. From the beginning of her employment as a Library Aide III claimant Barker has worked on a 10.75-month school year basis. At no time during this period was the duration of her school year decreased. During the 1975-76 school year claimant Barker was employed during the normal school year until June 28, 1976. She was then off work until shortly before the resumption of work in the fall. She was notified sometime during the first part of June 1976 that she was scheduled to return to work on August 11, 1976.
Claimant Barker filed a claim for unemployment benefits on June 29, 1976. On July 29, 1976, the administrator determined that she was entitled to benefits.
Claimant Ebert was also employed by petitioner School District No. 24J as a Library Aide III. She has been employed since August 1968. Beginning with the 1969-70 school year claimant Ebert has worked on a 10.75-month school year basis. At no time during this period was claimant Ebert's work decreased from the normal 10.75-month school year.
During the 1975-76 school year claimant Ebert worked until June 28, 1976. She was then off work until August 11, 1976. On or about June 7, 1976, claimant Ebert was notified that she was expected to return to work on August 11, 1976.
On July 16, 1976, claimant Ebert filed a claim for unemployment benefits. On August 12, 1976, benefits were similarly allowed to her by administrator's decision.
Claimant Hunter has been employed by School District No. 1, Multnomah County, as a secretary since January 1956. From the beginning of her employment she has worked approximately a 210-day school year and has not worked during the normal school summer recess. During the 1975-76 school year claimant Hunter worked the regular school year until approximately June 27, 1976. She was then off work until the normal resumption of school in the fall. She was notified prior to June 27, 1976, that she was scheduled to return to work on August 18, 1976. Claimant Hunter has been off work during the summer recess for a comparable period during the summers since she began working for School District No. 1.
On July 8, 1976, claimant Hunter filed a claim for unemployment compensation. On August 13, 1976, benefits were granted by amended administrator's decision. On August 23, 1976, claimant Hunter was disqualified by the administrator for unemployment compensation during the period July 4, 1976 through August 14, 1976, and from August 8, 1976, because she refused a bona fide offer of suitable employment and was not available for or actively seeking work.
Except as above noted, in all cases the administrator allowed benefits, and his decision was affirmed in turn by the referee and by the Employment Appeals Board (EAB), although by a divided vote in two of the cases.
The relevant parts of the applicable statute, ORS 657.221, are as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fletcher v. State Acc. Ins. Fund
...does not require a determination of legislative intent. State v. Cooney, 36 Or.App. 217, 584 P.2d 329; School Dist. 24J v. Employment Div., 29 Or.App. 897, 565 P.2d 1102 (1977); Speck Restaurant v. OLCC, 24 Or.App. 337, 545 P.2d 601 rev. den., dismissed for want of a federal question 429 U.......