McIntyre v. Employment Division

598 P.2d 313, 41 Or. App. 189, 1979 Ore. App. LEXIS 2679
CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon
DecidedJuly 30, 1979
Docket78-AB-889, CA 12494
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 598 P.2d 313 (McIntyre 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.

Bluebook
McIntyre v. Employment Division, 598 P.2d 313, 41 Or. App. 189, 1979 Ore. App. LEXIS 2679 (Or. Ct. App. 1979).

Opinions

[191]*191SCHWAB, C. J.

Claimant appeals from a decision of the Employment Appeals Board that denied her claim for unemployment compensation.

Claimant began working for the Coos County Education Service District (formerly known as the Coos County Intermediate Education District) in March, 1976, as a secretary/receptionist. She worked year-round, including summer months, until June, 1978, when she was informed that her job had been changed to a 10-month position; that June 15 would be her last day; and that she was to return to work on August 21. Claimant applied for unemployment compensation for the period of her summer layoff.

Her claim was denied at all levels on the basis of ORS 657.221(1), which provides that, for nonacademic employes of an educational institution, unemployment compensation

" * * * benefits shall not be paid * * * for any week of unemployment which commences during a period between two successive academic years or terms if the individual performs such [i.e., nonacademic] services in the first academic year or term and there is a reasonable assurance that the individual will perform any such services in the second academic year or term for any educational institution.”

Claimant is seeking unemployment compensation for "a period between two successive academic years.” She received a firm assurance that she was to return to the same job with the Coos County Education Service District at the end of the summer. ORS 657.221(1) thus bars this claim if son. education service district is an "educational institution” within the meaning of that statute.

ORS 657.010(16) provides that for purposes of the unemployment compensation law

" 'Educational institution,’ except an institution of higher education as defined in subsection (14) of this section, means an institution:
[192]*192"(a) In which participants, trainees or students are offered an organized course of study or training designed to transfer to them knowledge, skills, information, doctrines, attitudes or abilities from, by or under the guidance of an instructor or teacher, and
"(b) Which is accredited, registered, approved, licensed or issued a permit to operate as a school by the Department of Education or other government agency, or which offers courses for credit that are transferable to an approved, registered or accredited school; and
"(c) In which the course or courses of study or training which it offers may be academic, technical, trade or preparation for gainful employment in a recognized occupation; and
"(d) In which the course or courses of study or training are offered on a regular and continuing basis.”

There is some dispute about whether the question, "Is an Education Service District an educational institution within the meaning of ORS 657.221(1) and 657.010(16),” is one of law or fact. The parties seemingly join issue in part over whether there is substantial evidence to support the Employment Appeals Board’s conclusion that claimant’s employer is an educational institution. The dissent joins the parties in contending or assuming the question is one of fact.

We conclude, however, that — as the parties alternatively argue — the question presented is one of law. The functions and duties of education service districts are described in ORS ch 334. ORS 657.010(16) defines what is an educational institution for purposes of the unemployment compensation law. All we need do is compare ORS ch 334 with ORS 657.010(16).

Before making that comparison, it should first be noted that the legal question presented is for the court, rather than the administrative agency, to resolve under the test of McPherson v. Employment Division, 285 Or 541, 591 P2d 1381 (1979). The relevant statutes are complete and detailed. The relevant statutes state [193]*193legislative policy rather than delegating authority to make policy to the Employment Division.

The statutes governing education service districts include ORS 334.005, which provides:

it s-í íjí ifc ifc
"(2) In its state role, the education service district:
"(a) Performs the function of financial equalization among local school districts in its area to assist the state in providing equal educational opportunity to each student; and
"(b) Serves to assist the State Board of Education, through contract, in providing state-level services and support of state laws and state minimum standards.
"(3) At the local level, the education service district shall provide professional services and facilities in education and shall furnish such services and facilities, on a cooperative basis with local districts, as may further the intent and purposes of this chapter.”

ORS 334.125(3) provides:

"The education service district board shall perform all duties required by law, including but not limited to:
"(a) Distribution of such school funds as it is empowered to apportion;
"(b) Conduct of audits;
"(c) Duties as district boundary board;
"(d) Budget and tax levying duties;
"(e) Curriculum improvement;
"(f) Registration of contracts and teaching certificates; and
"(g) Special education programs.”

ORS 334.175(1) provides:

"The education service district or a combination of education service districts or a school district under contract with an education service district or districts may provide services and facilities, including but not limited to, central purchasing, library, curriculum material, special teachers and special programs un[194]*194der ORS chapter 343 to all school districts which are a part of the education service district or districts.”

The basic thrust of these statutes and the balance of ORS ch 334 is that an education service district provides various services and facilities on a contract basis to local school districts.

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

Related

Multnomah Education Service District v. Employment Division
849 P.2d 558 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1993)
Multnomah Educ. Serv. Dist. v. Emp. Div.
849 P.2d 558 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1993)
Swanson v. Independent School District No. 625
484 N.W.2d 432 (Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 1992)
Alexander v. Department of Employment Security
688 P.2d 516 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1984)
Friedlander v. Employment Division
676 P.2d 314 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1984)
McIntyre v. Employment Division
598 P.2d 313 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
598 P.2d 313, 41 Or. App. 189, 1979 Ore. App. LEXIS 2679, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcintyre-v-employment-division-orctapp-1979.