Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 50.20.090 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) An individual shall be disqualified for benefits for any week with respect to which the commissioner finds that the individual's unemployment is:

(a) Due to a strike at the factory, establishment, or other premises at which the individual is or was last employed; or

(b) Due to a lockout by his or her employer who is a member of a multiemployer bargaining unit and who has locked out the employees at the factory, establishment, or other premises at which the individual is or was last employed after one member of the multiemployer bargaining unit has been struck by its employees as a result of the multiemployer bargaining process.

(2) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply if it is shown to the satisfaction of the commissioner that:

(a) The individual is not participating in or financing or directly interested in the strike or lockout that caused the individual's unemployment; and

(b) The individual does not belong to a grade or class of workers of which, immediately before the commencement of the strike or lockout, there were members employed at the premises at which the strike or lockout occurs, any of whom are participating in or financing or directly interested in the strike or lockout: PROVIDED, That if in any case separate branches of work which are commonly conducted as separate businesses in separate premises are conducted in separate departments of the same premises, each such department shall, for the purpose of this subdivision, be deemed to be a separate factory, establishment, or other premises.

(3) Any disqualification imposed under this section shall end when the strike or lockout is terminated.

[ 1988 c 83 s 1; 1987 c 2 s 1; 1953 ex.s. c 8 s 12; 1945 c 35 s 77; Rem. Supp. 1945 s 9998-215. Prior: 1943 c 127 s 3; 1941 c 253 s 3; 1939 c 214 s 3; 1937 c 162 s 5.]

Notes:

Labor dispute study—1988 c 83: "(1) The department of employment security shall study and analyze the impact of section 1 of this act on the number of claimants receiving unemployment insurance benefits and the total amount of benefits paid, and on the type, frequency, duration, and outcome of labor disputes. In performing the study the department shall specifically address the impact of section 1(1)(b) of this act on the above subjects.

(2) In performing its duties under this section the department shall periodically convene meetings with representatives of labor and management, including but not limited to representatives of the following: A general business association; an organization broadly representing organized labor; the construction industry; construction industry organized labor; the trade industry; trade industry organized labor; the manufacturing industry; manufacturing industry organized labor; the service industry; service industry organized labor; the transportation industry; transportation industry organized labor; the communication industry; and communication industry organized labor.

(3) For the purpose of studying and analyzing the impact of section 1(1)(b) of this act the department shall periodically convene, in addition to those meetings specified in subsection (2) of this section, meetings with representatives of labor and management from industries with multiemployer bargaining units, including but not limited to representatives from a general business association; an organization broadly representing organized labor; the retail trade industry; and retail trade industry organized labor.

(4) The department shall report its findings to the governor, the senate economic development and labor committee, and the house of representatives commerce and labor committee, or the appropriate successor committees, by the commencement of the 1990 regular session of the legislature." [ 1988 c 83 s 2.]

Effective date—1988 c 83: "This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and safety, the support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and shall take effect on the Sunday following the day on which the governor signs this act [March 20, 1988]." [ 1988 c 83 s 3.]

Applicability—Effective date—1987 c 2: "(1) This act shall apply retrospectively to all applicable employers and employees as of November 16, 1986.

(2) This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and safety, the support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and shall take effect immediately [February 20, 1987]." [ 1987 c 2 s 4.]

Severability—1987 c 2: "If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected." [ 1987 c 2 s 5.]

(1) An individual shall be disqualified for benefits for any week with respect to which the commissioner finds that the individual's unemployment is due to a strike at the factory, establishment, or other premises at which the individual is or was last employed.

(2) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply if it is shown to the satisfaction of the commissioner that:

(a) The individual is not participating in or financing or directly interested in the strike that caused the individual's unemployment; and

(b) The individual does not belong to a grade or class of workers of which, immediately before the commencement of the strike, there were members employed at the premises at which the strike occurs, any of whom are participating in or financing or directly interested in the strike: PROVIDED, That if in any case separate branches of work which are commonly conducted as separate businesses in separate premises are conducted in separate departments of the same premises, each such department shall, for the purpose of this subsection, be deemed to be a separate factory, establishment, or other premises.

(3)(a) Any disqualification imposed under this section shall end on the earlier of:

(i) The second Sunday following the first date of the strike, provided that the strike is not found to be prohibited by federal or state law in a final judgment. If a final judgment finds that a strike is prohibited by state or federal law, any benefits paid are liable for repayment as set forth in RCW 50.20.190; or

(ii) The date the strike is terminated.

(b) When the disqualification ends, the individual is subject to the one week waiting period as provided in RCW 50.20.010 and any benefits must be calculated in accordance with this chapter. However, if an individual is unemployed due to a strike at the separating employer's factory, establishment, or other premises at which the individual is or was last employed, the individual may receive weekly benefits for no more than six calendar weeks, subject to other limitations provided in this title. Any weekly benefits received unrelated to the individual's unemployment due to a strike may not be counted toward the six calendar weeks.

(4) If benefits are issued as a result of a strike under this section, the department shall notify the separating employer of the mediation services available through the public employment relations commission.

[ 2025 c 352 s 1; 1988 c 83 s 1; 1987 c 2 s 1; 1953 ex.s. c 8 s 12; 1945 c 35 s 77; Rem. Supp. 1945 s 9998-215. Prior: 1943 c 127 s 3; 1941 c 253 s 3; 1939 c 214 s 3; 1937 c 162 s 5.]

Notes:

Conflict with federal requirements—2025 c 352: "If any part of this act is found to be in conflict with federal requirements that are a prescribed condition to the allocation of federal funds to the state or the eligibility of employers in this state for federal unemployment tax credits, the conflicting part of this act is inoperative solely to the extent of the conflict, and the finding or determination does not affect the operation of the remainder of this act. Rules adopted under this act must meet federal requirements that are a necessary condition to the receipt of federal funds by the state or the granting of federal unemployment tax credits to employers in this state." [ 2025 c 352 s 6.]

Effective date—2025 c 352 ss 1-7: "Sections 1 through 7 of this act take effect January 1, 2026." [ 2025 c 352 s 11.]

Expiration date—2025 c 352 ss 1-4: "Sections 1 through 4 of this act expire December 31, 2035." [ 2025 c 352 s 12.]

Applicability—Effective date—1987 c 2: "(1) This act shall apply retrospectively to all applicable employers and employees as of November 16, 1986.

(1) An individual shall be disqualified for benefits for any week with respect to which the commissioner finds that the individual's unemployment is:

(a) Due to a strike at the factory, establishment, or other premises at which the individual is or was last employed; or

(2) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply if it is shown to the satisfaction of the commissioner that:

(a) The individual is not participating in or financing or directly interested in the strike or lockout that caused the individual's unemployment; and

(3) Any disqualification imposed under this section shall end when the strike or lockout is terminated.

[ 1988 c 83 s 1; 1987 c 2 s 1; 1953 ex.s. c 8 s 12; 1945 c 35 s 77; Rem. Supp. 1945 s 9998-215. Prior: 1943 c 127 s 3; 1941 c 253 s 3; 1939 c 214 s 3; 1937 c 162 s 5.]

Notes:

Applicability—Effective date—1987 c 2: "(1) This act shall apply retrospectively to all applicable employers and employees as of November 16, 1986.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 13 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1956–2024 · leading case: Ancheta v. Daly, 461 P.2d 531 (Wash. 1969).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Ancheta v. Daly, 461 P.2d 531 (Wash. 1969). · cites it 4× “The department and the commissioner found that the claimants had been unemployed as a result of a stoppage of work due to a labor dispute and ruled they were thus ineligible for compensation under section 77 of the Washington Employment Security Act (codified asRCW 50.20.090) ,…”

Shell Oil Co. v. Brooks, 567 P.2d 1132 (Wash. 1977). · cites it 5× “The commissioner of the Department of Employment Security found there was no "stoppage of work" within the meaning of the applicable statute, RCW 50.20.090, at the Anacortes refinery of Shell Oil Company, appellant herein, when 220 employees left their jobs to strike.”

Acheson v. Dep't of Emp. Sec., 579 P.2d 953 (Wash. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 7× “This is an appeal by various employees of the Washington Natural Gas Company from a ruling by the Commissioner of the Employment Security Department (affirmed by the Pierce County Superior Court) that they were disqualified by RCW 50.20.090 1 from receiving unemployment…”

Employees of Pac. Mar. Ass'n v. Hutt, 562 P.2d 1264 (Wash. 1977). · cites it 13× “The primary issue is whether these claimants are disqualified from receiving benefits because they fail to fit within the exception to RCW 50.20.090. 1 The facts are complex and need to be stated in detail.”

E. Washington & N. Idaho Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council v. Dep't of Emp. Sec., 576 P.2d 442 (Wash. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 5× “Willamette-Western appealed the decision, and the Department's appeal tribunal ruled the employees were disqualified from receiving benefits under RCW 50.20.090. 1 The commissioner of the Department affirmed the tribunal's decision, and the employees appealed to Superior Court,…”

Aarhaus v. Dep't of Emp. Sec., 594 P.2d 1370 (Wash. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 3× “The issue, simply stated, is whether the employees were subject to disqualification from receiving benefits by reason of the provisions of RCW 50.20.090. 1 The hourly employees did not work at the mill from July 11 to September 22, 1975, when there was a stoppage of work at the…”

Allen v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 516 P.2d 1032 (Wash. 1973). “080 (for refusal to work); and RCW 50.20.090 (if his unemployment is due to a labor dispute).”

Ackerlund v. State Emp. Sec. Dep't, 300 P.2d 1019 (Wash. 1956). · cites it 2× “RCW 50.20.090 prior to 1953 amendment], any claimant was disqualified for benefits for any week “.”

Abbott v. Dep't of Emp. Sec., 621 P.2d 734 (Wash. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 3× “Both courts reversed the Commissioner, holding that the denial of benefits under the labor dispute disqualification, RCW 50.20.090, was clearly erroneous. The cases have been consolidated on appeal to this court, and we affirm the Superior Court decisions.”

Belgarde v. Brooks, 576 P.2d 447 (Wash. Ct. App. 1978). “The question presented here is: Are the plaintiffs disqualified from all benefits for the entire week because their work stoppage on that Friday was due to a labor dispute? Insofar as pertinent, RCW 50.20.090 provides: An individual shall be disqualified for benefits for any…”

Gilmore Constr. Co. v. Miller, 327 N.W.2d 628 (Neb. 1982). “] Although there are some shortcomings in this definition of ‘directly interested,’ we believe that there was no direct interest by the claimants based both upon the lack of participation by the claimants coupled with a recognition that the minimal penny an hour wage increase…”

Macomber v. Dep't of Emp. Sec., 554 P.2d 340 (Wash. 1976). · cites it 2× “A number of these employees filed claims for unemployment compensation benefits and the question in Ancheta was whether the labor dispute disqualification, RCW 50.20.090, made them ineligible. See Ancheta v.”

Show all 13 citing cases →

— Wash. Rev. Code § 50.20.090(1) — 2 cases

Employees of Pac. Mar. Ass'n v. Hutt, 562 P.2d 1264 (Wash. 1977). “The primary issue is whether these claimants are disqualified from receiving benefits because they fail to fit within the exception to RCW 50.20.090. 1 The facts are complex and need to be stated in detail.”

E. Washington & N. Idaho Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council v. Dep't of Emp. Sec., 576 P.2d 442 (Wash. Ct. App. 1978). “Willamette-Western appealed the decision, and the Department's appeal tribunal ruled the employees were disqualified from receiving benefits under RCW 50.20.090. 1 The commissioner of the Department affirmed the tribunal's decision, and the employees appealed to Superior Court,…”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 50.20.090(2) — 3 cases

Abbott v. Dep't of Emp. Sec., 621 P.2d 734 (Wash. Ct. App. 1980). “Both courts reversed the Commissioner, holding that the denial of benefits under the labor dispute disqualification, RCW 50.20.090, was clearly erroneous. The cases have been consolidated on appeal to this court, and we affirm the Superior Court decisions.”

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.

Wash. Rev. Code § 50.20.090 (2026)

Notes:

RCW 50.20.090

Strike or lockout disqualification—When inapplicable. (Effective January 1, 2026, until December 31, 2035.)

Notes:

RCW 50.20.090

Strike or lockout disqualification—When inapplicable. (Effective December 31, 2035.)

Notes: