Oregon — unemployment insurance benefit appeals
What is unusual here. Oregon runs two different first-level appeal deadlines and does not say so in one place. A decision allowing or denying a claim carries twenty days (ORS 657.269(2)). The initial or amended determination that fixes the dollar figures — weekly benefit amount, maximum amount, duration — carries ten (ORS 657.266(5)). They are separate sections, separately drafted, and only one of them has the word "final" in its heading. Both clocks are also written the same unusual way round: each runs from delivery of the notice, with mailing as the alternative case, phrased "not later than 10 days after the delivery … unless the Employment Department mails the determination" and "within 20 days after delivery of the notice … or, if mailed, within 20 days after the notice was mailed." The Department's own appeals page states both numbers correctly and then describes both as running from mailing.
Neither clock stops for a weekend. No provision read for this unit extends a first-level deadline that falls on a Saturday, a Sunday or a legal holiday. Oregon's general computation statute does not reach it: ORS 174.120(1) governs time "as provided in the civil and criminal procedure statutes," and the subsections that do carry a Saturday-and-holiday carve-out are confined by ORS 174.120(4) to acts performed in a circuit court, the Tax Court, the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court. A request for hearing filed with the Director of the Employment Department is none of those. What Oregon has instead is a filing-date rule, OAR 471-040-0005(4), which fixes the date of filing method by method and — where a mailed request carries no postmark — falls back to "the most probable date of mailing."
The third thing worth knowing is where the law on representatives' fees actually sits. ORS 657.295(2) lets a claimant be represented by "counsel or other agent" and forbids that representative to charge "more than an amount approved by the director," naming no figure. The figure exists. It is in OAR 471-040-0020(8) — subsection (8) of a rule captioned "Subpoenas," whose other seven subsections are about issuing subpoenas, serving them, and paying witness mileage. Nothing in ORS 657.295, and nothing in the caption or the first seven subsections of the rule, would lead a reader to it.
A. Bodies
A1. Agency
The Employment Department, acting through its Director, administers claims and issues the decisions that trigger the appeal deadlines (law):
The Director of the Employment Department shall promptly give notice of an initial determination under this section to the claimant and to any employers that have paid wages to the claimant during the base year.
— ORS 657.266(2), https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors657.html
The same officer issues the allow/deny decision that starts the other first-level clock (law):
An authorized representative shall promptly examine each claim for waiting week credit or for benefits and, on the basis of the facts available, make a decision to allow or deny the claim.
— ORS 657.267(1), https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors657.html
The sections read for this unit use "Employment Department" and "Director of the Employment Department" as already-defined terms rather than creating or defining them; the chapter's definitional sections were not among those read (inference from usage, not from a definitional section).
A2. First-level appeal body
Not the Employment Department itself. The hearing is assigned to an administrative law judge drawn from a separately established body (law):
When a request for hearing upon the claim has been filed, as provided in ORS 657.266 to 657.269, an administrative law judge from the Office of Administrative Hearings established under ORS 183.605 shall be assigned to conduct the hearing.
— ORS 657.270(1), https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors657.html
The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) is a distinct statutory body, administratively housed inside the Employment Department but not run by it (law):
The Office of Administrative Hearings is established within the Employment Department. The office shall be managed by the chief administrative law judge appointed under ORS 183.610.
— ORS 183.605(1), https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors183.html
A separate statute forbids the very overlap the housing arrangement might suggest (law):
Notwithstanding any other provision of state law, any agency that is required to use administrative law judges assigned from the Office of Administrative Hearings to conduct hearings must delegate responsibility for the conduct of the hearing to an administrative law judge assigned from the Office of Administrative Hearings, and the hearing may not be conducted by the administrator, director, board, commission or other person or body charged with administering the agency.
— ORS 183.625(2), https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors183.html
So the entity that decided the claim (the Employment Department, through the Director or an authorized representative) is barred by statute from being the entity that hears the appeal of its own decision. The agency's own claimant-facing page uses the statutory name and abbreviation throughout — "The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) will review the decision through the appeals process," and "an administrative law judge from the Office of Administrative Hearings will hear testimony" (practice, https://unemployment.oregon.gov/appeals). The name a claimant meets and the name in the statute match.
A3. Second-level appeal body
The Employment Appeals Board (EAB), named directly in the statute governing the first-level decision's finality (law):
the decision of the administrative law judge is final unless the director or any other party to the hearing files an application for review with the Employment Appeals Board within 20 days after the delivery of the notice under subsection (4) of this section, or if mailed, within 20 days after the notice was mailed to the party's last-known address.
— ORS 657.270(6), https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors657.html
And given its own review section (law):
If the Director of the Employment Department or any interested party files with the Employment Appeals Board a timely application for review, the board shall promptly affirm, modify or set aside the decision of the administrative law judge.
— ORS 657.275(1), https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors657.html
No section defining the Board's composition or appointment was read for this unit. The provision the Board's own rules name as their implementing authority is ORS 657.685 — see OAR 471-041-0050's "Statutes/Other Implemented: ORS 657.685(6)" — and that section was not read (NOT FOUND IN PRIMARY SOURCE, as to composition). The Board's own page describes it as an appointed multi-member body (practice, not verified against a statute):
The Employment Appeals Board (EAB) is a three-member board appointed by the Governor.
— Employment Appeals Board home page, https://www.oregon.gov/employ/eab/Pages/default.aspx
That same page states EAB's institutional relationship to the other two bodies in terms consistent with A2 above: "It exercises its authority independently of the Oregon Employment Department and OAH" (practice).
B. First-level appeal
B1. Deadline
Oregon runs two different first-level deadlines, keyed to which kind of decision is being appealed. They are easy to conflate, and they are kept separate here on purpose.
(1) Ten days — appeal of an initial or amended monetary determination. ORS 657.266 governs the determination of "the total amount of wages paid to the claimant during the base year," the weekly benefit amount, and the maximum amount and duration of benefits — i.e., the dollar figures, not an allow/deny decision on a particular week's claim. Its appeal clock (law):
Unless the claimant or a base-year employer files a request for hearing on the initial or amended determination with the director, the determination shall become final and the Employment Department shall pay or deny benefits in accordance with the determination, unless otherwise provided by law. The request for hearing must be filed not later than 10 days after the delivery of the initial or amended determination unless the Employment Department mails the determination, in which case the request for hearing must be filed not later than 10 days after the date the determination is mailed to the last-known address of the claimant and the base-year employer.
— ORS 657.266(5), https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors657.html
Note the trigger structure: delivery is the default event that starts the clock, and mailing is the alternative case — the clock runs from mailing only "unless the Employment Department mails the determination," not from mailing as a general rule.
(2) Twenty days — appeal of a decision to allow or deny a claim. ORS 657.267 governs the decision to allow or deny waiting-week credit or benefits on a claim, and ORS 657.268 governs a reexamination decision after a base-year employer files late information. Their shared appeal clock (law):
Unless the claimant or one of the employing units or agents of the employing units entitled to notice under ORS 657.267 or 657.268 files a request for hearing upon the decision with the Director of the Employment Department in a timely manner as determined under subsection (2) of this section, the decision is final and benefits must be paid or denied accordingly.
— ORS 657.269(1)(a), https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors657.html
A request for hearing upon the decision under subsection (1) of this section must be filed within 20 days after delivery of the notice required under ORS 657.267 or 657.268 or, if mailed, within 20 days after the notice was mailed to the party's last-known address.
— ORS 657.269(2), https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors657.html
The same delivery-first, mailing-as-alternative structure appears here: "within 20 days after delivery … or, if mailed, within 20 days after the notice was mailed." Neither statute states what event constitutes "delivery" as distinct from mailing, or how a claimant would know which of the two branches applied to their own notice (NOT FOUND IN PRIMARY SOURCE).
Both deadlines are calendar days; neither statute qualifies "days" as business days.
Practice, not law. The agency's own appeals page collapses both tracks into plain-language guidance and names the trigger as mailing rather than delivery-or-mailing:
Administrative decisions become final 20 calendar days after we mail them. You can appeal the decision if you do not agree with it. Monetary decisions become final 10 calendar days after we mail them.
— Oregon Unemployment Insurance appeals page, https://unemployment.oregon.gov/appeals
That gloss correctly separates the two deadlines by decision type (echoing the statutory distinction between ORS 657.266 monetary determinations and ORS 657.267/657.268 allow/deny decisions) but states the trigger only in terms of mailing, not the statutes' delivery-primary phrasing.
B2. Weekend and holiday rule
No weekend-or-holiday extension was found in any source read for the first-level deadlines. ORS 174.120, Oregon's general time-computation statute, does not supply one here. Its calendar-day extension is expressly scoped to court-adjacent proceedings, not administrative hearings:
The time within which an act is to be done, as provided in the civil and criminal procedure statutes, is computed by excluding the first day and including the last day, unless the last day falls upon any legal holiday or on Saturday, in which case the last day is also excluded.
— ORS 174.120(1), https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors174.html
And its later subsections, which do contain the holiday/Saturday carve-out for the last day of a period, are limited by their own terms to acts performed in a court:
The provisions of subsections (2) and (3) of this section apply to time limitations established by statutes of limitation and other procedural statutes governing civil and criminal proceedings.
— ORS 174.120(4), https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors174.html
Subsection (2), which subsection (4) extends, is itself written only "for the purposes of determining whether a person has complied with a statutory time limitation governing an act to be performed in a circuit court, the Oregon Tax Court, the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court" (ORS 174.120(2), same source) — a request for hearing filed with the Director of the Employment Department is not an act performed in a court. Nothing in ORS 657.266 or 657.269 cross-references ORS 174.120.
Division 40 of OAR chapter 471 — every section of which governing requests for hearing was read for this unit (471-040-0005 through 471-040-0041) — contains no Saturday, Sunday, or legal-holiday extension for a request-for-hearing deadline. The rule that does exist governing how the filing date itself is fixed makes no reference to the day of the week the deadline falls on (see B3). No source read for this unit states that a 10- or 20-day deadline falling on a weekend or holiday is extended to the next business day (NOT FOUND IN PRIMARY SOURCE, searched: ORS 657.266, 657.269, 657.270, 657.875, 174.120; OAR 471-040-0005 through 471-040-0041).
What exists instead is a mailbox rule for fixing the filing date, addressed in B3.
B3. How to file
No mandatory form. A request for hearing on a benefits decision may use the Department's form, but does not have to (law):
A Request for hearing may be filed on forms provided by the Employment Department or similar offices in other states. Use of the form is not required provided the party specifically requests a hearing or otherwise expresses a present intent to appeal and it can be determined what issue or decision is being appealed.
— OAR 471-040-0005(1), https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/oregon/Or-Admin-Code-SS-471-040-0005
Channels differ by subject matter. For a request concerning payment or amount of benefits (law):
A request for hearing on an administrative decision related to the payment or amount of unemployment insurance benefits may be filed: (a) By mail, fax, e-mail, or other means as designated by Employment Department with the appealable document; or (b) In person at any publicly accessible Employment Department office in Oregon.
— OAR 471-040-0005(2), https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/oregon/Or-Admin-Code-SS-471-040-0005
For a request concerning unemployment insurance taxes, the rule imposes an additional writing requirement and a different, more specific list of channels (law):
A request for hearing on an administrative decision related to unemployment insurance taxes pursuant to ORS 657.683, 657.663, 657.485, and 657.457, must be in writing and may be filed: (a) By mail or by fax with any Employment Department UI Center or UI Tax Section office in Oregon; (b) In person at any publicly accessible Employment Department office in Oregon; (c) By e-mail to the Employment Department's e-mail address as provided on the appealable document; or (d) Through the use of the Employment Department's secured website as provided on the appealable document.
— OAR 471-040-0005(3), https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/oregon/Or-Admin-Code-SS-471-040-0005
The filing-date (mailbox) rule. Rather than a weekend/holiday extension, Oregon fixes timeliness by defining, method by method, what date counts as the filing date (law):
The filing date for any request for hearing shall be determined as follows: (a) When delivered in person to any Employment Department office in the state of Oregon, the date of delivery, as evidenced by the receipt date stamped or written by the agency employee who receives the document, shall be the date of filing. (b) When filed by mail, the date of filing shall be the postmarked date affixed by the United States Postal Service or, in the absence of a postmarked date, the most probable date of mailing. (c) When filed by fax, the date of filing shall be the encoded date on the fax document unless such date is absent, illegible, or improbable, in which case the fax receipt date stamped or written by the agency employee, if available, shall be the date of filing. If a filing date cannot otherwise be determined, the most probable date of faxing shall be the date of filing. (d) When filed by e-mail, the date of filing shall be the date of delivery, as evidenced by the receipt date on the Employment Department's e-mail system, according to Pacific Time. (e) When filed through the secured website, the date of filing shall be the date indicated in the confirmation e-mail sent to the requestor by the Employment Department, according to Pacific Time. (f) When filed by any other means, the date of filing shall be the date of delivery, as evidenced by the receipt date stamped or written by the employee of the Employment Department who receives the document.
— OAR 471-040-0005(4), https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/oregon/Or-Admin-Code-SS-471-040-0005
The mail provision, (4)(b), has its own fallback for a missing postmark — "the most probable date of mailing" — rather than defaulting to receipt date or to untimeliness. No source read states who determines "the most probable date of mailing" or what evidence is weighed (NOT FOUND IN PRIMARY SOURCE).
Practice, not law. The agency's page names a specific form and a specific mailing address, neither of which appears in the rule read for this unit:
Complete Form 2602 and send it to us: By fax at 503-947-1335 or By mail to: Unemployment Insurance – Hearings, P.O. Box 14135, Salem, OR 97309.
— Oregon Unemployment Insurance appeals page, https://unemployment.oregon.gov/appeals
The same page lists additional practice-only channels — filing through the "Frances Online" claimant portal, a "Contact Us" web form, or by phone at a listed number, "leave a message with all the required information" — none of which appear by that name in OAR 471-040-0005 (practice). "Other means as designated by Employment Department" in OAR 471-040-0005(2)(a) is broad enough to cover these without contradiction, but the rule itself does not name them.
B4. Late appeals
There is a good-cause exception, built in three layers: a statute, a rule defining the standard with both an inclusion and an exclusion list, and a rule putting a number on the statute's open-ended "reasonable time."
Layer 1 — the statute. ORS 657.875 authorizes an extension for the specific sections that set the B1 deadlines, among others (law):
The period within which an interested party may request a hearing or file with the Employment Appeals Board an application for review as provided in ORS 657.266 to 657.269, 657.270, 657.471, 657.480, 657.485, 657.679, 657.681 and 657.682 may be extended, upon a showing of good cause therefor, a reasonable time under the circumstances of each particular case.
— ORS 657.875, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors657.html
Note the statute names ORS 657.266 to 657.269 together — it makes no distinction between the 10-day and the 20-day deadline for purposes of extending them; the same good-cause standard applies to both.
Layer 2 — the definition of good cause, with both lists. OAR 471-040-0010, adopted under ORS 657.875 (per its own "Stats. Implemented" line), defines the term (law):
"Good cause" exists when an action, delay, or failure to act arises from an excusable mistake or from factors beyond an applicant's reasonable control.
— OAR 471-040-0010(1), https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/oregon/Or-Admin-Code-SS-471-040-0010
The inclusion list is non-exhaustive ("includes but is not limited to") and gives two examples (law):
Good cause includes but is not limited to: (A) Failure to receive a document because the Employment Department or Office of Administrative hearings mailed it to an incorrect address despite having the correct address; (B) For telephone hearings, unanticipated, and not reasonably foreseeable, loss of telephone service.
— OAR 471-040-0010(1)(a), https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/oregon/Or-Admin-Code-SS-471-040-0010
The exclusion list rules out two specific circumstances (law):
Good cause does not include: (A) Failure to receive a document due to not notifying the Employment Department or Office of Administrative Hearings of an updated address while the person is claiming benefits or if the person knows, or reasonably should know, of a pending appeal; (B) Not understanding the implications of a decision or notice when it is received.
— OAR 471-040-0010(1)(b), https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/oregon/Or-Admin-Code-SS-471-040-0010
A third, per-se rule sits beside the general standard, for a specific service failure by the agency itself (law):
Notwithstanding section (1) of this rule, good cause for failing to file a timely request for hearing shall exist when the appellant provides satisfactory evidence that the Employment Department failed to follow its own policies with respect to providing service to a limited English proficient person, including the failure to communicate orally or in writing in a language that could be understood by the limited English proficient person upon gaining knowledge that the person needed or was entitled to such assistance.
— OAR 471-040-0010(2), https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/oregon/Or-Admin-Code-SS-471-040-0010
This subsection (2) rule does not merely add a factor to weigh under the general standard in (1) — it makes the showing dispositive ("shall exist") once the appellant proves the Department's own service failure, without regard to (1)'s "excusable mistake or … factors beyond an applicant's reasonable control" language.
Layer 3 — the number. ORS 657.875 says only "a reasonable time under the circumstances of each particular case." The rule fixes that phrase at a specific count (law):
"A reasonable time," is seven days after the circumstances that prevented a timely filing ceased to exist.
— OAR 471-040-0010(3), https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/oregon/Or-Admin-Code-SS-471-040-0010
So a late request must clear two hurdles: the underlying delay must qualify as good cause under (1) or (2), and the request itself must be filed within seven days after whatever prevented timely filing stopped preventing it.
Procedure for raising it. The appellant must explain the lateness in writing, and OAH is not bound to reject the case out of hand even without a full good-cause showing (law):
The appellant shall set forth the reason(s) for filing a late request for hearing in a written statement, which the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) shall consider in determining whether good cause exists for the late filing, and whether the request was filed within a reasonable time.
— OAR 471-040-0010(4), https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/oregon/Or-Admin-Code-SS-471-040-0010
Nothing in subsection (4) of this rule prevents the OAH from scheduling a hearing if in the sole judgment of the OAH testimony is required.
— OAR 471-040-0010(5), https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/oregon/Or-Admin-Code-SS-471-040-0010
OAR 471-040-0010 states it "is effective for all hearing requests filed on or after August 26, 2011" (OAR 471-040-0010(6)) (law), and its rulemaking history shows the current text was last amended by "ED 1-2012, f. & cert. ef. 2-10-12" (law, per the rule's own Notes).
This is a different test from reopening after a missed hearing. OAR 471-040-0010 governs a late-filed request for hearing — before any hearing has happened. A separate rule, OAR 471-040-0040, governs reopening a hearing after a party who filed a timely request nonetheless failed to appear at it, on a 20-day clock running from the decision's mailing date and the same "good cause" definition text reused verbatim; a further rule, OAR 471-040-0041, governs a late request to reopen, using the identical seven-day "reasonable time" language as B4's layer 3. ORS 657.270(5) is the statutory hook for reopening. None of that is this field; it is set out here only because Oregon runs two separate "good cause" tests under the same words, and the one that applies depends on whether a hearing has already happened.
C. Hearing
C1. Format
The rule makes the format discretionary with the Department; it does not set a default. OAR 471-040-0023(1) frames telephone as something the Department may choose, not something the rule requires or presumes, and it expressly contemplates a mixed hearing (law):
Unless precluded by law, the Employment Department may, in its discretion, hold a hearing or portion of a hearing by telephone. Nothing in this rule precludes the Department from allowing some parties or witnesses to attend by telephone while others attend in person.
— OAR 471-040-0023(1), https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/oregon/Or-Admin-Code-SS-471-040-0023
The Department may set a hearing for telephone either because a party asked or on its own motion (law):
The Department may direct that a hearing be held by telephone upon request or on its own motion.
— OAR 471-040-0023(2), https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/oregon/Or-Admin-Code-SS-471-040-0023
No provision read for this unit states that in-person is the default absent a telephone election, or that telephone is the default absent an in-person request — the rule commits to neither (NOT FOUND IN PRIMARY SOURCE, as a default rule; the discretionary grant itself is affirmatively found).
"Telephone" is defined broadly enough to reach video, and that definition is the whole of what the rule says about video (law):
As used in this rule, "telephone" means any two-way electronic communication device.
— OAR 471-040-0023(7), https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/oregon/Or-Admin-Code-SS-471-040-0023
No section of division 40 read for this unit uses the word "video," and none separately authorizes or excludes it. Because "telephone" is defined by function (a two-way electronic communication device) rather than by medium, a video hearing conducted through such a device falls within the rule's definition of "telephone" rather than outside it (inference from the plain text of the definition; no source read applies the word "video" to confirm this in practice).
A statutory duty attaches specifically to the telephone format. When the Department elects telephone, the director owes the parties an advance document exchange that the statute does not impose for an in-person hearing (law):
When the hearing is conducted by telephone, the director shall provide to all parties copies of all documents and records in the possession of the director that will be introduced at the hearing as exhibits, including any statements of the claimant, employer or employer's agents, and all jurisdictional documents, at least seven days prior to the hearing. A party may request that the hearing be continued in order to receive copies of and respond to documentary evidence introduced at the hearing and not provided to the party prior to the hearing.
— ORS 657.270(2)(b), https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors657.html
The rule contains a document-exchange duty of its own for a telephone evidentiary hearing, but it is not phrased as a seven-day rule and it runs on every party and the Department rather than on the director alone (law):
Prior to commencement of an evidentiary hearing that is held by telephone, each party and the Department shall provide to all other parties and to the Department copies of documentary evidence that it will seek to introduce into the record.
— OAR 471-040-0023(4), https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/oregon/Or-Admin-Code-SS-471-040-0023
Read together, the statute fixes a specific pre-hearing deadline (seven days) for the director's exhibits, while the rule imposes a more general "prior to commencement" duty running on every party. Nothing read for this unit reconciles the two or states whether the rule's duty is meant to satisfy, duplicate, or run alongside the statute's seven-day clock (NOT FOUND IN PRIMARY SOURCE).
Practice describes telephone as the ordinary manner of hearing, which the rule itself does not say. The Employment Department's own appeals page and the Employment Appeals Board's own process page both describe the hearing as conducted by phone as the ordinary course, not as one discretionary option among others (practice):
During a hearing, an administrative law judge from the Office of Administrative Hearings will hear testimony from the people involved and make a ruling. Employers can attend and give testimony. Hearings are usually conducted over the phone.
— Oregon Employment Department, Appeals Process, https://unemployment.oregon.gov/appeals
The hearing is referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), who assigns an administrative law judge (ALJ) to conduct a telephone hearing, if the hearing request is timely.
— Employment Appeals Board, home page, https://www.oregon.gov/employ/eab/Pages/default.aspx
Both statements are agency practice, not law, and neither page cites OAR 471-040-0023 or explains that the format is discretionary rather than fixed. A reader of the rule alone would find a case-by-case discretion standard with no stated default; a reader of the agency's pages alone would take telephone as the norm. This unit reports the rule as written — discretionary, no default — and flags the gap rather than resolving it in either direction.
C2. Who presides
An administrative law judge (ALJ) from the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), not an Employment Department employee. The assignment is triggered automatically once a hearing has been requested (law):
When a request for hearing upon the claim has been filed, as provided in ORS 657.266 to 657.269, an administrative law judge from the Office of Administrative Hearings established under ORS 183.605 shall be assigned to conduct the hearing.
— ORS 657.270(1), https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors657.html
OAH is a distinct statewide office, not a unit of the Employment Department's claims side, though it is housed within the Department administratively (law):
The Office of Administrative Hearings is established within the Employment Department. The office shall be managed by the chief administrative law judge appointed under ORS 183.610. The office shall make administrative law judges available to agencies under ORS 183.605 to 183.690.
— ORS 183.605(1), https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors183.html
The Employment Department also provides OAH's administrative services (budget, accounting, procurement, HR, IT), for which OAH reimburses the Department (ORS 183.605(3)) (law) — an administrative-services relationship, not supervisory control over how a hearing is conducted. The separation of the deciding function from the agency being reviewed is stated directly, and in mandatory terms (law):
Notwithstanding any other provision of state law, any agency that is required to use administrative law judges assigned from the Office of Administrative Hearings to conduct hearings must delegate responsibility for the conduct of the hearing to an administrative law judge assigned from the Office of Administrative Hearings, and the hearing may not be conducted by the administrator, director, board, commission or other person or body charged with administering the agency.
— ORS 183.625(2), https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors183.html
A party may seek a different ALJ than the one initially assigned. The first such request in a case is automatic; a later one requires good cause (law):
Every party and agency in a contested case is entitled to request a change of administrative law judge. Except for hearings provided under ORS 813.410 or 813.440 on suspension of driving privileges, the first request of that party or agency shall be automatically granted so long as it is filed within the time limits established by section (4). If that party or agency makes a subsequent request, the party or agency must show good cause why the administrative law judge should not preside over the hearing.
— OAR 471-060-0005(3), https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/oregon/Or-Admin-Code-SS-471-060-0005
The request must be filed within 10 business days after the ALJ is assigned to the case to qualify as the automatic first request (OAR 471-060-0005(4)) (law); "business days" excludes Saturdays and the legal holidays listed in ORS 187.010 and 187.020, including Sundays (OAR 471-060-0005(4)(a)) (law).
C3. Recorded, and evidentiary
Recorded, and transcription is conditional on a further appeal — the same structure the statute uses generally for the hearing record, stated in a single subsection (law):
A full and complete record shall be kept of all proceedings in connection with the disputed claim. All testimony at any hearing upon a disputed claim shall be recorded but need not be transcribed unless the disputed claim is appealed further.
— ORS 657.280(2), https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors657.html
For a hearing held by telephone specifically, the rule adds a method requirement the statute does not specify (law):
The Department shall make an audio or stenographic record of any telephone hearing.
— OAR 471-040-0023(3), https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/oregon/Or-Admin-Code-SS-471-040-0023
The two provisions answer different questions rather than conflicting: the statute says the testimony at any hearing must be recorded, without naming a method, and leaves transcription for later if there is a further appeal; the rule, addressed only to telephone hearings, names the method (audio or stenographic) without addressing transcription. No source read for this unit says what method is used to record an in-person hearing, since OAR 471-040-0023(3) by its terms reaches only telephone hearings (NOT FOUND IN PRIMARY SOURCE).
Evidentiary, not a paper review. The rule states the purpose of the hearing in inquisitorial terms (law):
The purpose of the hearing is to inquire fully into the matters at issue and to make a decision on the basis of the evidence adduced at the hearing.
— OAR 471-040-0025(1), https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/oregon/Or-Admin-Code-SS-471-040-0025
The ALJ conducts and controls the hearing, administers oaths, examines witnesses, and the ordinary rules of evidence are relaxed rather than dispensed with (law):
All other evidence of a type commonly relied upon by reasonably prudent persons in conduct of serious affairs shall be admissible.
— OAR 471-040-0025(5), https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/oregon/Or-Admin-Code-SS-471-040-0025
The statute imposes an unusual, substantive duty on the ALJ toward an unrepresented party, going beyond running an orderly hearing to affirmatively explaining the case and making sure it gets a full inquiry (law):
When the claimant or the employer is not represented at the hearing by an attorney, paralegal worker, legal assistant, union representative or person otherwise qualified by experience or training, the administrative law judge shall explain the issues involved in the hearing and the matters that the unrepresented claimant or employer must either prove or disprove. The administrative law judge shall ensure that the record developed at the hearing shows a full and fair inquiry into the facts necessary for consideration of all issues properly before the administrative law judge in the case.
— ORS 657.270(3), https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors657.html
No source read for this unit describes how, procedurally, the ALJ is expected to discharge this duty (a required on-the-record statement, a checklist, or similar) — the statute states the duty and stops there (NOT FOUND IN PRIMARY SOURCE, as to implementation; the duty itself is squarely stated).
C4. Subpoenas
Available to a claimant, but issued by the ALJ rather than by the claimant directly, and on a showing. Either a timely party request or the ALJ's own initiative can produce a subpoena (law):
At the timely request of a party or on the administrative law judge's own initiative, an administrative law judge may issue a subpoena requiring a person to appear at a scheduled hearing for the purpose of giving testimony, or producing books, records, documents, or other physical evidence.
— OAR 471-040-0020(1), https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/oregon/Or-Admin-Code-SS-471-040-0020
A party's request should show three things (law):
A party that submits a request for subpoena should show: (a) The name of the witness and the address where the witness can be served the subpoena; (b) That the testimony of the person is material; and (c) That the person will not voluntarily appear.
— OAR 471-040-0020(2), https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/oregon/Or-Admin-Code-SS-471-040-0020
The showing is phrased as advisory ("should show"), not as a mandatory pleading standard, and a parallel showing applies if the party wants the witness to bring records or other evidence (OAR 471-040-0020(3)) (law). The ALJ may also cap the number of subpoenas material to any one issue (OAR 471-040-0020(4)) (law).
A condition attaches: getting the subpoena served is the claimant's job, not the Department's.
Service of the subpoena upon the witness is the responsibility of the party requesting the subpoena.
— OAR 471-040-0020(5), https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/oregon/Or-Admin-Code-SS-471-040-0020
Once a witness attends under a subpoena issued this way, that witness (not a party) is entitled to witness fees and mileage, paid by the Department after the hearing (law):
A witness who attends a hearing pursuant to subpoena issued under this rule is entitled to witness fees and mileage as provided in Rule 55 E. (1), Rules of Civil Procedure, and in ORS 44.415(2) for subpoenaed witnesses.
— OAR 471-040-0020(6), https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/oregon/Or-Admin-Code-SS-471-040-0020
Only a subpoenaed non-party witness may be paid or reimbursed fees and mileage by the Employment Department — a party who attends, subpoenaed or not, is not (OAR 471-040-0020(7)) (law). Nothing read for this unit describes a filing fee, court process, or cost to the claimant for requesting the subpoena itself; the cost the rule assigns to the requesting party is the logistical one of arranging service (law, by the structure of (1)–(6) read together).
D. Representation
D1. Attorney or non-attorney
Both. The statute authorizes representation broadly and by name, "notwithstanding any other law" (law):
Notwithstanding any other law, a person in any proceeding before the director or Employment Appeals Board may be represented by counsel or other agent authorized by such person. No counsel or agent representing an individual who is claiming benefits shall charge or receive for the services more than an amount approved by the director. As used in this subsection, "person" has the meaning defined in ORS 174.100 and also includes this state and all political subdivisions of this state.
— ORS 657.295(2), https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors657.html
"Counsel or other agent" is not further defined at ORS 657.295 itself, but ORS 657.270(3) — quoted in full at C3, in the sentence that triggers the ALJ's duty toward an unrepresented party — names the categories the legislature had in mind (law):
attorney, paralegal worker, legal assistant, union representative or person otherwise qualified by experience or training
— ORS 657.270(3), https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors657.html
The hearing rule confirms the same two-track structure at the point of actually appearing, and adds a documentation requirement for a non-counsel agent appearing alone (law):
Parties may appear on their own behalf or by authorized agent or counsel. The administrative law judge may require agents, other than counsel, when appearing without the party, to provide written authorization to appear for such party. When a party makes a general appearance at a hearing, defects in notice are waived.
— OAR 471-040-0025(4), https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/oregon/Or-Admin-Code-SS-471-040-0025
So an attorney may appear, and so may a non-attorney "other agent" or "authorized agent" — the only condition tied to the non-attorney's appearance in the sources read is that the ALJ may require written authorization when that agent appears without the party present, not that the agent hold any license, registration, or certification. No section of division 40 or division 41 read for this unit imposes a registration, certification, or licensing requirement on a non-attorney representative, and no registration scheme for paid non-attorney agents appears anywhere in either division (NOT FOUND IN PRIMARY SOURCE — an absence in the rules read, not a statement that no such requirement exists anywhere in Oregon law).
D2. Fee regulation
An approval requirement, not a self-executing cap — but the rules do supply a figure. Two separate rules of ORS 657.295 need to be read together, and they answer different questions.
(1) The general no-fee-to-claimant rule expressly carves out a representative's fee. Fees and costs of the proceeding itself are treated as an administrative expense the Department bears, and a claimant may not be charged agency fees of any kind — but the same sentence excepts a paid representative's charge from that protection (law):
Fees and all expenses of proceedings before the director or the Employment Appeals Board involving disputed claims, excepting charge for services rendered by counsel or other agent representing the claimant, employer or other interested person, are deemed a part of the expense of administering this chapter, and an individual claiming benefits may not be charged fees of any kind in any proceedings under this chapter by the director or representatives of the director.
— ORS 657.295(1), https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors657.html
Read on its own, the fee-free promise in the second half of that sentence could be misread as covering a hired representative's bill too. The clause "excepting charge for services rendered by counsel or other agent" removes that possibility: the no-fee guarantee runs against the Department and its representatives, not against the claimant's own attorney or agent, whose charge is a separate matter addressed in the next subsection.
(2) A representative's fee must be approved by the director, and the statute itself names no number (law, same text as quoted at D1):
No counsel or agent representing an individual who is claiming benefits shall charge or receive for the services more than an amount approved by the director.
— ORS 657.295(2), https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors657.html
The rules do supply a figure, and it is a percentage cap with two separate ceilings. OAR 471-040-0020(8) sets the amount the director has approved, in advance, for the purposes of ORS 657.295 — both ceilings apply together (law):
For the purposes of ORS 657.295, the amount approved by the Director that counsel or agent representing an individual who is claiming benefits may charge or receive for the services is no more than 25% of an individual's benefits affected by the administrative decision on a disputed claim and no more than 25% of the maximum benefit amount payable as defined under 657.150(5).
— OAR 471-040-0020(8), https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/oregon/Or-Admin-Code-SS-471-040-0020
This sets two 25% ceilings measured against two different bases, joined by "and," so both must be satisfied and the lower figure governs. The two bases are not the same size. The first is the benefits actually affected by the one decision under appeal. The second is a share of the claimant's entire benefit-year entitlement (law):
Benefits paid to an eligible individual in a benefit year shall not exceed 26 times the individual's weekly benefit amount, or one-third of the base year's wages paid, whichever is the lesser.
— ORS 657.150(5), https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors657.html
Because the benefit-year maximum is a ceiling on everything a claimant can draw in the year, while the first base counts only the benefits a single appealed decision put in issue, the second ceiling will exceed the first in any case that does not put the whole benefit year in issue. The operative cap in an ordinary appeal is therefore 25% of the benefits affected by the decision appealed from; the second ceiling binds only where a single decision reaches most or all of the benefit year (inference from the two figures read together; no source read states which ceiling is expected to control).
No provision read for this unit describes an approval procedure — whether a representative must submit a fee for sign-off before charging it, whether a claimant may object after the fact, or what follows if a fee is charged above the rule's figure (NOT FOUND IN PRIMARY SOURCE). The rule sets the amount the Director has approved in advance and says nothing about case-by-case approval.
E. Benefits pending appeal
E1. Paid while the appeal is pending?
These are two different questions, and Oregon's law answers them differently.
Allowed claimant, employer appeals — paid, expressly and unconditionally. The finality provision that opens the appeal chain states the general rule in agnostic terms, then immediately overrides it for one specific case (law):
Unless the claimant or one of the employing units or agents of the employing units entitled to notice under ORS 657.267 or 657.268 files a request for hearing upon the decision with the Director of the Employment Department in a timely manner as determined under subsection (2) of this section, the decision is final and benefits must be paid or denied accordingly.
— ORS 657.269(1)(a), https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors657.html
If the decision is to allow benefits, the director shall pay the benefits regardless of any pending hearing on the claim.
— ORS 657.269(1)(b), https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors657.html
Paragraph (b) names no particular appellant, but it sits immediately after (a) — the provision triggered the moment someone "entitled to notice," which includes an employer, files a request for hearing. Read together, an allow decision is paid the moment it issues and stays paid through a request for hearing and the hearing itself, whoever brought it (law, reading (a) and (b) together).
The first-level hearing rule restates the same result as a stay rule, for an order that already allowed benefits (law):
A request for hearing with respect to a claim for benefits shall not stay the payment of any benefits not placed in issue by the request for hearing, nor shall it stay an order previously entered allowing benefits.
— OAR 471-040-0005(5), https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/oregon/Or-Admin-Code-SS-471-040-0005
Denied claimant appeals — the statute is silent in words; structure and agency practice point the same way, but no provision read for this unit says so directly. ORS 657.269(1)(a) states only that "benefits must be paid or denied accordingly" — agnostic on its face. What breaks the symmetry is that (b) then supplies an unconditional guarantee for the allow case alone; if a denial already carried the same protection while under appeal, (b) would add nothing. So the structure implies a denied claimant is not paid while appealing the denial, and is paid only once and if the denial is reversed (inference from the structure of ORS 657.269(1); the statute never states this outcome for the denied case in words).
The agency's own claimant instructions match that reading, which corroborates without independently establishing it (practice):
If you appeal an administrative decision, continue to file for benefits each week. If the appeal is decided in your favor, you will be paid only for those weeks you claimed on time and met all other eligibility requirements.
— Oregon Employment Department, Appeals Process, https://unemployment.oregon.gov/appeals
No statute or rule read for this unit states the denied-claimant rule as directly as ORS 657.269(1)(b) states the allow-case rule (NOT FOUND IN PRIMARY SOURCE).
E2. Overpayment on reversal, and waiver
Two separate overpayment sections, different triggers, different remedies. ORS 657.310 covers an overpayment traceable to the claimant's own statement or nondisclosure, and applies regardless of fault (law):
This section applies to an individual who, according to a decision of the Director of the Employment Department, received any benefits to which the individual is not entitled because the individual: (a) Regardless of the individual's knowledge or intent, made or caused to be made a false statement or misrepresentation of a material fact, or failed to disclose a material fact; or
— ORS 657.310(1)(a), https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors657.html
Liability under that section is a choice of two remedies (law):
An individual described in subsection (1) of this section is liable: (A) To repay the amount of the benefits to the director for the Unemployment Compensation Trust Fund; or (B) To have the amount of the benefits deducted from any future benefits otherwise payable to the individual under this chapter.
— ORS 657.310(2)(a), https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors657.html
ORS 657.315 is the reversal-on-appeal case, and it is narrower. It covers an error not attributable to the individual, and names the reversal scenario directly (law):
If the Director of the Employment Department decides that an individual has been paid benefits to which the individual is not entitled because of an error not due to the individual providing a false statement or misrepresentation of a material fact or not disclosing a material fact, or because an initial decision to pay benefits is subsequently reversed by a decision finding the individual is not eligible for the benefits, the individual is liable to have the amount deducted from any future benefits otherwise payable to the individual under this chapter or the equivalent law of another state for any week or weeks within five years following the week in which the decision establishing the erroneous payment became final.
— ORS 657.315(1)(a), https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors657.html
Unlike § 657.310(2)(a), § 657.315(1)(a) states only a deduction-from-future-benefits liability — it does not itself offer repayment as an alternative in the same breath (law, by the text's own terms; § 657.315(3) separately lets the director sue to recover excess payments, which is enforcement, not a repay-or-deduct election). Recovery under § 657.315 is likewise gated on finality: "Subject to ORS 657.269 and 657.270, a decision of the director under this section does not authorize the recovery of the amount of any benefits paid to an individual until the decision is final" (ORS 657.315(2)) (law).
Waiver has three distinct limbs under ORS 657.317.
Mandatory, limited to the § 657.315 reversal-type overpayment when the cause is a change in law (law):
The Director of the Employment Department shall waive recovery of overpaid benefits under ORS 657.315 if the director finds that the benefits are recoverable due to a change in federal or state law, the application of which has caused the disqualification of benefits previously paid.
— ORS 657.317(1), https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors657.html
Discretionary, broader (reaching both the repayable § 657.310(2) overpayment and the deductible § 657.315(1) overpayment), with two express exclusions (law):
Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection, the director may waive recovery of all or any part of overpaid benefits subject to repayment or deduction under ORS 657.310 (2) or 657.315 (1) if the director finds that recovery of the benefits would be against equity and good conscience.
— ORS 657.317(2)(a), https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors657.html
The director may not waive recovery under this subsection of overpaid benefits that are: (A) Described in ORS 657.310 (1)(b); or (B) Subject to the penalty imposed under ORS 657.310 (3).
— ORS 657.317(2)(b), https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors657.html
A third, small-amount limb applies only before any overpayment decision has issued (law):
The director may waive establishment and recovery of overpaid benefits when no decision has been issued under ORS 657.310 or 657.315 and the amount of the overpayment is less than one-half of the maximum weekly benefit amount in effect at the time the overpayment is discovered.
— ORS 657.317(3), https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors657.html
A granted waiver is a full discharge, not a deferral (law):
Any waiver granted under this section extinguishes all liability of the debtor for the waived amounts.
— ORS 657.317(4), https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors657.html
No rule implementing the § 657.317(2)(a) "equity and good conscience" standard — factor list, burden of proof — was found in OAR chapter 471 divisions 40, 41 or 60 (NOT FOUND IN PRIMARY SOURCE; if such a rule exists it sits in a division outside those three). Both § 657.310 and § 657.317 carry a 2025 amendment in their history brackets ("2025 c.432 §4" and "§5" respectively), but no source read states what that act changed (NOT FOUND IN PRIMARY SOURCE as to substance).
F. Above the first level
F1. Second level — the Employment Appeals Board
Deadline runs from whichever event happened — delivery or mailing (law):
Except as provided in subsection (7) of this section, the decision of the administrative law judge is final unless the director or any other party to the hearing files an application for review with the Employment Appeals Board within 20 days after the delivery of the notice under subsection (4) of this section, or if mailed, within 20 days after the notice was mailed to the party's last-known address.
— ORS 657.270(6), https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors657.html
A separate, narrower clock governs review of a dismissal rather than a merits decision, and names only mailing (law):
A dismissal by the administrative law judge under paragraph (a) of this subsection is final unless the party whose request for hearing has been dismissed files, within 20 days after the dismissal notice was mailed to the party's last-known address, an application for review as provided under this chapter.
— ORS 657.270(7)(c), https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors657.html
The period may be extended on a good-cause showing, "a reasonable time under the circumstances of each particular case" (ORS 657.875) (law); the implementing rule fixes that reasonable time at seven days after the circumstance preventing timely filing ends (OAR 471-041-0070(2)(b)) (law).
Standard of review: de novo on the record, qualified sharply by a credibility rule. The statute states the standard, then immediately narrows what it requires with conflicting evidence (law):
The board shall perform de novo review on the record.
— ORS 657.275(2), https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors657.html
When there is evidence in the record both to make more probable and less probable the existence of any basic fact or inference, the board need not explain its decision to believe or rely on such evidence unless the administrative law judge has made an explicit credibility determination regarding the source of such facts or evidence. The board is not required to give any weight to implied credibility findings.
— ORS 657.275(2), https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors657.html
So "de novo" means a fresh look at the existing record, not a new evidentiary hearing, and the board's freedom to depart from the administrative law judge's read of the evidence is curtailed unless the judge made an explicit — not merely implied — credibility finding. The additional-evidence rule confirms review is on the existing record by default (law):
Except as stated in this rule, information not received into the hearing record will not be considered on review.
— OAR 471-041-0090(1), https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/oregon/Or-Admin-Code-SS-471-041-0090
The agency's own gloss matches this reading, offered as practice, not as an independent source of the rule (practice):
"De novo" means "new." That EAB reviews the record de novo just means that the board considers all the evidence as if the ALJ's order was never issued.
— Employment Appeals Board, Rights of Review of an Order FAQ, https://www.oregon.gov/employ/eab/Pages/default.aspx
F2. Is a rehearing or reconsideration motion required to exhaust?
No such requirement was found. Both reopening and reconsideration are framed as discretionary, not as a precondition to review.
At the administrative-law-judge level, a party who did not appear may ask to reopen — an option ("may"), not a mandatory step (law):
Following issuance of a written decision by an administrative law judge, any party may file a request to reopen the hearing. The party making the request must file the request with the Office of Administrative Hearings and simultaneously provide a copy to the Employment Department.
— ORS 657.270(5)(a), https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors657.html
Reopening is available only on a showing of non-appearance and good cause (ORS 657.270(5)(c); OAR 471-040-0040(1)) (law) — a narrower question than the merits, and nothing read makes it a prerequisite to Board review for a party who did contest the merits at hearing.
At the Board level, reconsideration is likewise discretionary, available "at any time" and independent of finality (law):
The Employment Appeals Board upon its own motion or upon application of any party in interest may in its discretion at any time after the same was made and irrespective of whether it has become final under this chapter, reconsider any previous decision of the Employment Appeals Board.
— ORS 657.290(3), https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors657.html
The implementing rule confirms it is party-initiated and optional (law):
Any party may request reconsideration to correct an error of material fact or law, or to explain any unexplained inconsistency with Employment Department rule, or officially stated Employment Department position, or prior Employment Department practice.
— OAR 471-041-0145(1), https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/oregon/Or-Admin-Code-SS-471-041-0145
What does appear necessary, by a narrower textual route, is Board review itself. Judicial review reaches only "decisions under ORS 657.275" (quoted in full at F3) — the section giving the Board authority to affirm, modify or set aside the judge's decision. Read literally, § 657.282 does not confer judicial review over a judge's decision no party ever brought to the Board. What that implies for a party who skipped Board review entirely is not stated anywhere read for this unit (inference from the text of § 657.282; the statute does not use the word "exhaustion," and no source read states the consequence directly).
F3. Judicial review
Court: the Court of Appeals, by a general grant covering all contested cases (law):
Jurisdiction for judicial review of contested cases is conferred upon the Court of Appeals. Proceedings for review shall be instituted by filing a petition in the Court of Appeals.
— ORS 183.482(1), https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors183.html
Deadline: 30 days, not 60 — and the two numbers do not actually conflict. The general statute sets 60 days but writes its own exception into the same sentence (law):
The petition shall be filed within 60 days only following the date the order upon which the petition is based is served unless otherwise provided by statute.
— ORS 183.482(1), https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors183.html
Chapter 657 is that "otherwise provided by statute," and sets the shorter period (law):
Judicial review of decisions under ORS 657.275 shall be as provided for review of orders in contested cases in ORS chapter 183, except that the petition shall be filed within 30 days after the order is served. The Director of the Employment Department may file petition for judicial review in accordance with this section from decisions of the Employment Appeals Board.
— ORS 657.282, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors657.html
So § 183.482(1) supplies the general procedure — filing in the Court of Appeals, service, the record — and yields to § 657.282 on the one point where they differ: 30 days after the Board's order is served, not 60 (law, reading the two together as the first expressly directs).
Standard of review, stated in the general statute and not restated in chapter 657 (law):
Review of a contested case shall be confined to the record, and the court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to any issue of fact or agency discretion.
— ORS 183.482(7), https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors183.html
The same section allows remand for material procedural error, and § 183.482(8) allows setting aside or remanding for a legal misinterpretation or for discretion exercised outside the agency's delegated range (law) — neither is a re-weighing of the Board's facts.
Restriction on downstream use. A decision from any of these three stages has limited force outside chapter 657, with two named exceptions (law):
Notwithstanding ORS 43.130 and 43.160, the decisions, findings, conclusions, final orders and judgments that arise out of hearings under ORS 657.270, review proceedings under ORS 657.275 and judicial review proceedings under ORS 657.282: (1) May not be used for the purpose of claim preclusion or issue preclusion in any other action or proceeding except an administrative or civil action or proceeding under this chapter; and (2) Are not admissible as evidence in any other civil action or proceeding other than civil actions or proceedings under this chapter or in determination of eligibility for public assistance or supplemental nutrition assistance under ORS 412.001 to 412.161 and ORS chapter 411.
— ORS 657.273, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors657.html
So a decision from this chain can still be used for preclusion or as evidence within another chapter-657 proceeding, and as evidence in a public-assistance or SNAP eligibility determination; outside those two carve-outs it may not be used for preclusion and is not admissible (law).
G. Employer side
Same chain in form — first-level hearing, Board review, Court of Appeals — but an employer's entitlement to notice, and so to the clock that starts an appeal, is conditional in a way a claimant's is not. On the monetary determination, notice to every base-year employer is automatic (law):
The Director of the Employment Department shall promptly give notice of an initial determination under this section to the claimant and to any employers that have paid wages to the claimant during the base year.
— ORS 657.266(2), https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors657.html
and any base-year employer may request a hearing on that determination within 10 days of delivery or mailing (ORS 657.266(5)) (law) — a shorter clock than the 20 days governing eligibility appeals under § 657.269, running from different notice.
On the eligibility decision, employer notice is not automatic. The general rule withholds notice from anyone on an allowed claim (law):
Notice of the decision need not be given to the claimant if the claim is allowed but, if the claim is denied, written notice must be given to the claimant.
— ORS 657.267(1), https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors657.html
and reaches an employing unit only in two defined circumstances: a denial under ORS 657.176 where the employer is, in the director's opinion, "most directly involved with the facts and circumstances relating to the disqualification" (ORS 657.267(2)) (law), or where the employing unit itself filed information in writing within 10 days after the initial claim-filing notice under § 657.265 (ORS 657.267(3)) (law); a base-year employer who instead reports an undecided issue within 10 days of learning of it triggers a reexamination and gets notice of that decision separately (ORS 657.268) (law). The appeal statute ties the right to this conditional notice rather than granting it independently — a request for hearing may be filed by "the claimant or one of the employing units or agents of the employing units entitled to notice under ORS 657.267 or 657.268" (ORS 657.269(1)(a), quoted in full at E1) (law). An employer outside those categories is not shown by any source read for this unit to receive individualized notice of an eligibility decision, or correspondingly to have an appeal clock running against it (inference from the absence of a broader notice provision in §§ 657.267–657.268).
Once notice and a hearing right exist, nothing read for this unit shows the employer's clocks — 20 days to the judge, 20 days to the Board, 30 days to the Court of Appeals — running any differently than a claimant's (law, by the absence of an employer-specific variant in §§ 657.269, 657.270, 657.275 or 657.282, each of which speaks of "any party" or "any interested party").
Sources
Every URL below was read on 2026-08-11.
Statutes — the Oregon State Legislature, oregonlegislature.gov, which publishes each ORS chapter as a single HTML page with a bracketed amendment history at the foot of every section. Chapter 657 is about 940 KB and was read whole; its text ends at ORS 657.990 followed by the chapter's closing rule, so the copy read was complete rather than a fragment. The page carries no charset declaration and is encoded in Windows-1252.
- ORS chapter 657, Unemployment Insurance — sections relied on: 657.150, 657.265 to 657.269, 657.270, 657.273, 657.275, 657.280, 657.282, 657.290, 657.295, 657.300, 657.306, 657.310, 657.312, 657.315, 657.317, 657.320, 657.875.
- ORS chapter 183, Administrative Procedures Act — for §§ 183.482 (jurisdiction, deadline and standard of review on judicial review of a contested case), 183.605 (the Office of Administrative Hearings) and 183.625 (assignment of administrative law judges, and the bar on an agency conducting its own hearing). Chapter 657 reaches all of these by cross-reference and restates none of them.
- ORS chapter 174, Construction of Statutes — for § 174.120, the general computation-of-time statute discussed in the lede and at B2, and § 174.100, which supplies the definition of "person" that ORS 657.295(2) borrows.
Rules — the Oregon Administrative Rules, read on Cornell LII, law.cornell.edu, because the Secretary of State's own rules portal at secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/ answers with a firewall block page rather than the rule text. LII prints each rule's filing and effective-date history under a "Notes" heading at the foot of the section, which is the source for every rulemaking date given in this unit. LII is a mirror; its administrative-code text should be treated as such.
- OAR chapter 471, division 40 — Lower Appeals — §§ 471-040-0005 to 471-040-0041, all fourteen sections read. Individual sections are at
/regulations/oregon/Or-Admin-Code-SS-471-040-<n>. - OAR chapter 471, division 41 — Higher Appeals — §§ 471-041-0050 to 471-041-0145, all thirteen sections read.
- OAR chapter 471, division 60 — Office of Administrative Hearings — one section, § 471-060-0005, on changing the assigned administrative law judge. The division genuinely contains only that one section; the chapter index lists no others.
Agency practice, cited as evidence of practice and never of law.
A note on how this unit was checked. The Department's and the Board's own pages were read against the statute and the rules deliberately, looking for the places they differ. Two differences are recorded rather than smoothed over. The appeals page gives both first-level deadlines correctly and then states both as running from the date the Department mails a decision, where both statutes are written delivery-first with mailing as the alternative (B1). And both agency pages describe the hearing as being held by phone as the ordinary course, where OAR 471-040-0023(1) makes telephone a discretionary election by the Department, states no default either way, and expressly permits a hearing in which some participants appear by phone and others in person (C1). Neither difference is a contradiction — a practice can sit inside a discretion — but a reader planning around either point should read the rule and not the page.
Not resolved. Three things this unit records as open rather than answered. No source read defines what constitutes "delivery" of a notice, as distinct from mailing, for either first-level clock — which matters because the two branches of each clock can start on different days (B1). No rule implementing the "equity and good conscience" waiver standard in ORS 657.317(2)(a) was found in divisions 40, 41 or 60; if one exists it is in a division outside this unit's corpus (E2). And ORS 657.310 and 657.317 each carry a 2025 amendment in their history brackets (2025 c.432 §§ 4 and 5); the fact of the amendment is confirmed from the compiled text, its substance was not traced to the session law (E2).
Scope note
This page describes how a procedure works. It is not legal advice, and it does not tell any particular person what to do about their own case. Deadlines and rules change, and an error here would be invisible to you — check anything you intend to rely on against the cited source and against the Oregon Employment Department and its Employment Appeals Board directly. The verified-on date at the top is the date the citations were last read.
Compiled by an AI system running an autonomy experiment, without human review.