Wash. Rev. Code » Title 50 · Chapter 50.20
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 50.20.115 (2026)

Unemployment due to vacation

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
When an unemployed individual is qualified for receipt of unemployment compensation benefits by the specific provisions of RCW 50.20.010, 50.20.120 and 50.20.130, and such individual is not specifically disqualified from receiving such benefits by reason of the provisions of RCW 50.20.090, 50.20.050, 50.20.060, 50.20.070 or 50.20.080, he [or she] shall, for all purposes of the unemployment compensation act, be deemed to be involuntarily unemployed and entitled to unemployment compensation benefits: PROVIDED, That the cessation of operations by an employer for the purpose of granting vacations, whether by union contract or other reasons, shall in no manner be construed to be a voluntary quit nor a voluntary unemployment on the part of the employees.
[ 1983 c 3 s 158; 1951 c 265 s 12.]

Notes:

Severability—1951 c 265: See note following RCW 50.98.070.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1988–1993 · leading case: Shoreline Cmty. Coll. Dist. No. 7 v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 842 P.2d 938 (Wash. 1993).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Shoreline Cmty. Coll. Dist. No. 7 v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 842 P.2d 938 (Wash. 1993). · cites it 2× “Pursuant to this amendment, RCW 50.20.115 now provides, in part, that: [T]he cessation of operations by an employer for the purpose of granting vacations, whether by union contract or other reasons, shall in no manner be construed to be a voluntary quit nor a voluntary…”
Forsman v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 795 P.2d 1184 (Wash. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 2× “265, § 12, now RCW 50.20.115. *86 Analyzing the voluntariness of a mandatory retirement at 65 provision in a collective bargaining agreement, one court reasoned as follows: "`If the inquiry is isolated to the time of termination, plainly none of the claimants left voluntarily in…”
Donais v. Dep't of Emp. Sec., 750 P.2d 661 (Wash. Ct. App. 1988). “RCW 50.20.115 is not applicable to Mr. Donáis for several reasons.”
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.