Fisher v. Employment Department

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Fisher v. Employment Department

911 P.2d 975, 139 Or. App. 320, 1996 Ore. App. LEXIS 199

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedFebruary 21, 1996

Docket94-AB-1358; CA A85035

StatusPublished

This text of 911 P.2d 975 (Fisher v. Employment Department) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fisher v. Employment Department, 911 P.2d 975, 139 Or. App. 320, 1996 Ore. App. LEXIS 199 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Claimant seeks review of an order of the Employment Appeals Board (Board) denying him unemployment benefits on the ground that he voluntarily left work without good cause. ORS 657.176(2)(c); OAR 471-30-038(4). The Board held that claimant did not prove that he had a reasonable alternative to quitting work because “nothing in the record suggests that the union lacked authority to address the inappropriate conduct of the lead worker and the employer’s failure to effectively put a stop to that conduct.” However, we can find nothing in the record from which it can be inferred that the union had the authority to address claimant’s difficulties with his lead worker. As we said in Bremer v. Employment Division, 47 Or App 1131, 615 P2d 1170 (1980):

“Before the Board may hold that a claimant has failed to consider ‘reasonable alternatives’ to leaving work, it must be found that there were such alternatives. Without such a finding, the Board’s conclusion is not supported by its own findings.” Id. at 1137.

In the absence of any finding of fact that the union had the authority to intervene on claimant’s behalf, the Board’s opinion suffers from the same defect as in Bremer.

Reversed and remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM

Claimant seeks review of an order of the Employment Appeals Board (Board) denying him unemployment benefits on the ground that he voluntarily left work without good cause. ORS 657.176(2)(c); OAR 471-30-038(4). The Board held that claimant did not prove that he had a reasonable alternative to quitting work because “nothing in the record suggests that the union lacked authority to address the inappropriate conduct of the lead worker and the employer’s failure to effectively put a stop to that conduct.” However, we can find nothing in the record from which it can be inferred that the union had the authority to address claimant’s difficulties with his lead worker. As we said in Bremer v. Employment Division, 47 Or App 1131, 615 P2d 1170 (1980):

“Before the Board may hold that a claimant has failed to consider ‘reasonable alternatives’ to leaving work, it must be found that there were such alternatives. Without such a finding, the Board’s conclusion is not supported by its own findings.” Id. at 1137.

In the absence of any finding of fact that the union had the authority to intervene on claimant’s behalf, the Board’s opinion suffers from the same defect as in Bremer.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

911 P.2d 975, 139 Or. App. 320, 1996 Ore. App. LEXIS 199, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fisher-v-employment-department-orctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack