Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 657.200 (2026)

Benefits during lockout or strike

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

657.200 Benefits during lockout or strike. (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of this chapter relating to availability for work, actively seeking work or refusal to accept suitable work, an individual who is otherwise eligible for benefits is not disqualified for benefits or waiting week credit for any week with respect to which the Director of the Employment Department finds that the unemployment of the individual is due to a lockout that is in active progress at the factory, establishment or other premises at which the individual is or was last employed or at which the individual claims employment rights by union agreement or otherwise.

(2)(a) An individual is disqualified for benefits for the first week with respect to which the Director of the Employment Department finds that the unemployment of the individual is due to a strike that is in active progress at the factory, establishment or other premises at which the individual is or was last employed or at which the individual claims employment rights by union agreement or otherwise.

(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of this chapter relating to availability for work, actively seeking work or refusal to accept suitable work, after the first week, an individual described in paragraph (a) of this subsection who is otherwise eligible for benefits is not disqualified for benefits or waiting week credit for:

(A) If the tax schedule in effect on the date on which the strike begins is Fund Adequacy Percentage Ratio I, II, III or IV, any of the subsequent 10 weeks of unemployment due to the strike.

(B) If the tax schedule in effect on the date on which the strike begins is Fund Adequacy Percentage Ratio V, VI, VII or VIII, any of the subsequent eight weeks of unemployment due to the strike. [Amended by 1985 c.133 §1; 1989 c.1095 §1; 2007 c.600 §1; 2025 c.432 §1]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 27 cases, 1961–1997 · leading case: Cameron v. DeBoard, 370 P.2d 709 (Or. 1962).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Cameron v. DeBoard, 370 P.2d 709 (Or. 1962). · cites it 26× “ORS 657.200 (1) provides: "An individual is disqualified for benefits for any week with respect to which the commissioner finds that his unemployment is due to a labor dispute which is in active progress at the factory, establishment or other premises at which he is or was last…”

Abu-Adas v. Emp. Dep't, Food Employers, Inc., 940 P.2d 1219 (Or. 1997). · cites it 10× “Moreover, ORS 657.200-(3)(a), which is concerned with how individuals may avoid the statutory labor dispute disqualification, 3 specifically recognizes that a lockout is a labor dispute.”

Barrier v. Emp. Div., 563 P.2d 1230 (Or. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 12× “The referee found all of the petitioners were unemployed due to a labor dispute and disqualified them from receiving unemployment benefits under ORS 657.200. The referee also found they were not disqualified for refusing to accept suitable employment under ORS 657.”

Henzel v. Cameron, 365 P.2d 498 (Or. 1961). · cites it 7× “- The finding of fact by the commissioner that the claimants were “directly interested” in the labor dispute, since supported by substantial evidence, is' conclusive upon the reviewing court. Thus, sincé there was a labor dispute and substantial evidence supports the…”

Skookum Co., Inc. v. Emp. Div., 545 P.2d 914 (Or. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 6× “The employer contends that there was a "labor dispute" in active progress until January 10, 1975 when complete agreement on the contract was reached and that claimants' unemployment was caused by the dispute. Claimants contend that their unemployment after December 2 was because…”

Roseburg Forest Prods. Co. v. Emp. Div., 835 P.2d 889 (Or. 1992). · cites it 16× “176(5)]: "`An individual shall not be disqualified from receiving benefits * * * [under ORS 657.200] if the individual ceases work or fails to accept work when a collective bargaining agreement between the individual's bargaining unit and the individual's employer is in effect…”

Skookum Co., Inc. v. Emp. Div., 554 P.2d 520 (Or. 1976). · cites it 4× “Thus, the court found that the claimants were not precluded from receiving unemployment benefits by the "labor dispute” disqualification contained in ORS 657.200(1). We granted review in order to consider the applicability of ORS 657.”

Adams v. Emp. Div., 717 P.2d 1199 (Or. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 8× “The referee concluded that all claimants were disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits by ORS 657.200(1): “An individual is disqualified for benefits for any week with respect to which the assistant director finds that the unemployment of the individual is due to a…”

Scoggins v. Morgan, 503 P.2d 509 (Or. Ct. App. 1972). · cites it 9× “” The petitioners in these consolidated cases concede they became unemployed by reason of a labor dispute and therefore are disqualified under ORS 657.200 (1), but argue they are requalified under ORS 657.”

Steele v. Emp. Dep't, 923 P.2d 1252 (Or. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 2× “First, it is not apparent that all disqualifications are always based on a claimant’s volitional act — the notable exception being the labor dispute disqualification, ORS 657.200.” Id. at 849 . In its context, our statement cannot be read to imply that disqualifications for…”

McKinney v. Emp. Div., 537 P.2d 126 (Or. Ct. App. 1975). · cites it 3× “Petitioners concede that, because their unemployment was “due to a labor dispute,” a presumption of ineligibility for benefits is raised by the terms of ORS 657.200(1): “An individual is disqualified for benefits for any week with respect to which the administrator finds that…”

James E. Frick, Inc. v. Emp. Div., 790 P.2d 33 (Or. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 5× “Former ORS 657.200 provided, in pertinent part: “(1) An individual is disqualified for benefits for any week with respect to which the assistant director finds that the unemployment of the individual is due to a labor dispute which is in active progress at the factory,…”

Show all 27 citing cases →

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 657.200(1) — 19 cases

Abu-Adas v. Emp. Dep't, Food Employers, Inc., 940 P.2d 1219 (Or. 1997). “Moreover, ORS 657.200-(3)(a), which is concerned with how individuals may avoid the statutory labor dispute disqualification, 3 specifically recognizes that a lockout is a labor dispute.”

Skookum Co., Inc. v. Emp. Div., 554 P.2d 520 (Or. 1976). “Thus, the court found that the claimants were not precluded from receiving unemployment benefits by the "labor dispute” disqualification contained in ORS 657.200(1). We granted review in order to consider the applicability of ORS 657.”

Skookum Co., Inc. v. Emp. Div., 545 P.2d 914 (Or. Ct. App. 1976). “The employer contends that there was a "labor dispute" in active progress until January 10, 1975 when complete agreement on the contract was reached and that claimants' unemployment was caused by the dispute. Claimants contend that their unemployment after December 2 was because…”

Roseburg Forest Prods. Co. v. Emp. Div., 835 P.2d 889 (Or. 1992). “176(5)]: "`An individual shall not be disqualified from receiving benefits * * * [under ORS 657.200] if the individual ceases work or fails to accept work when a collective bargaining agreement between the individual's bargaining unit and the individual's employer is in effect…”

Adams v. Emp. Div., 717 P.2d 1199 (Or. Ct. App. 1986). “The referee concluded that all claimants were disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits by ORS 657.200(1): “An individual is disqualified for benefits for any week with respect to which the assistant director finds that the unemployment of the individual is due to a…”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 657.200(3) — 11 cases

Henzel v. Cameron, 365 P.2d 498 (Or. 1961). “- The finding of fact by the commissioner that the claimants were “directly interested” in the labor dispute, since supported by substantial evidence, is' conclusive upon the reviewing court. Thus, sincé there was a labor dispute and substantial evidence supports the…”

Barrier v. Emp. Div., 563 P.2d 1230 (Or. Ct. App. 1977). “The referee found all of the petitioners were unemployed due to a labor dispute and disqualified them from receiving unemployment benefits under ORS 657.200. The referee also found they were not disqualified for refusing to accept suitable employment under ORS 657.”

Baker v. Cameron, 401 P.2d 691 (Or. 1965).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 657.200(3)(a) — 3 cases

James E. Frick, Inc. v. Emp. Div., 790 P.2d 33 (Or. Ct. App. 1990). “Former ORS 657.200 provided, in pertinent part: “(1) An individual is disqualified for benefits for any week with respect to which the assistant director finds that the unemployment of the individual is due to a labor dispute which is in active progress at the factory,…”

McIntire v. Emp. Div., 544 P.2d 173 (Or. Ct. App. 1976).

Cret v. Emp. Dep't, 932 P.2d 560 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 657.200(3)(b) — 2 cases

McIntire v. Emp. Div., 544 P.2d 173 (Or. Ct. App. 1976).

Cret v. Emp. Dep't, 932 P.2d 560 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 657.200(3)(c) — 1 case

Cret v. Emp. Dep't, 932 P.2d 560 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.