James v. Employment Division
This text of 570 P.2d 417 (James v. Employment Division) 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.
Opinion
Petitioner appeals from the decision of the Employment Appeals Board denying her claim for unemployment compensation on the ground that the claim was not timely filed. Petitioner has been employed by Oregon Freeze Dry Foods, Inc. for ten years. Because the company regularly shuts down on a seasonal basis, petitioner was accustomed to making periodic claims for unemployment compensation, her most recent prior claim occurring in January of 1976. The local office of the Employment Division nearest petitioner’s place of employment had in the past allowed claimant and others to file for benefits after returning to work from short layoffs contrary to Employment Division regulations, OAR 471-30-040(2).1 The local office subsequently corrected its error and conformed to OAR 471-30-040(2) which requires that a claimant file during the first week of unemployment.
Petitioner’s employer scheduled a shutdown to commence July 6,1976. During the first week of July, the local office notified the employer of the change to the one-week rule relating to the filing of claims and made arrangements for representatives of the local office to come to the place of employment to process claims on July 7. The employer in turn posted notices advising the employes regarding the necessity for filing during the first week of nonemployment as well as the time and place that the Employment Division personnel would be available to process claims. Petitioner had been on vacation since June 18,1976, and consequently was not informed of the requirement to file during the first week. She filed her claim upon her return to work in accordance with the past procedure of the local office. The claim was denied.
[[342]]*[342]Petitioner’s principal argument is that it was an abuse of discretion for the Administrator of the Employment Division to refuse to waive the one-week filing requirement. ORS 657.255 provides that unemployment compensation benefits shall be paid in accordance with the administrator’s regulations. ORS 657.155 allows the administrator some discretion by rule to waive eligibility requirements. OAR 471-30-0652 allows the exercise of such discretion if certain conditions exist. It is questionable, however, if any of [[343]]*[343]those conditions existed here. The regulations appear to apply only to extraordinary situations involving many claimants. The record indicates that petitioner was probably the only claimant at Oregon Freeze Dry Foods, Inc. who had failed to make her claim on time. In any event, neither the statute nor the regulations mandates that the administrator exercise his discretion. This court is without authority to create such a mandate. Cf Mary’s Fine Food, Inc. v. OLCC, 30 Or App 435, 567 P2d 146 (1977).
Petitioner also alleges that the administrator had not supplied the employer with printed statements concerning Employment Division regulations as required by ORS 657.2603 and consequently the claim should be paid. We find nothing in the record to support petitioner’s allegation. It is undisputed that the employer was notified by phone of the change in procedure, and in turn posted a notice to employes informing them of the change. The fact that the employer may not have received a "printed statement” at that time was not the cause of petitioner’s late filing. She was on vacation and would not have received notice in any event.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
570 P.2d 417, 31 Or. App. 339, 1977 Ore. App. LEXIS 1977, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-v-employment-division-orctapp-1977.