Olson v. Job Service North Dakota, 827 N.W.2d 36

Claimants, bargaining unit employees at ACS North Dakota facilities, sought unemployment benefits after ACS locked them out on August 1, 2011 and used replacement workers.
Job Service North Dakota denied benefits under N.D.C.C. § 52-06-02(4) as unemployment due to a labor dispute, including a claimant's work stoppage dispute of any kind.
The district court affirmed the denial; Claimants appealed arguing the statute does not cover employer-initiated lockouts.
The court's analysis centers on the interpretation of the phrase 'a claimant’s work stoppage dispute of any kind' and whether it includes lockouts.
The majority ultimately held that the plain language does not disqualify lockout-based unemployment, reversing and remanding for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Concurrences and dissents discuss whether the statute is ambiguous and how legislative history should be treated.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does § 52-06-02(4) disqualify unemployment benefits for a lockout?	Claimants: lockout is employer-initiated, not a claimant’s work stoppage; thus not covered.	ACS and Job Service: 'of any kind' broadens to include lockouts within a labor dispute.	Plain language does not disqualify; lockouts are not claimant-initiated stoppages.
Is the statute ambiguous, justifying use of legislative history to interpret scope?	Language is clear and unambiguous; no need for legislative history.	Statutory language is ambiguous and legislative history clarifies intent to exclude lockouts.	Court treated language as ambiguous and relied on legislative history to support claimant-focused reading.
What is the proper remedy on remand following the interpretation of the statute?	Reverse and remand for benefits consistent with the court's interpretation.	Maintain denial consistent with statutory interpretation.	Reverse the district court and remand to Job Service for proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Amoco Oil Co. v. Job Serv. North Dakota, 311 N.W.2d 558 (N.D. 1981) (context of 'stoppage of work' and unemployment benefits)
Resolution Trust Corp. v. Dickinson Econo-Storage, 474 N.W.2d 50 (N.D. 1991) (ejusdem generis interpretation and proper extension of general terms)
Morris v. Job Serv. North Dakota, 658 N.W.2d 345 (N.D. 2003) (standard of review for agency decisions; statutory interpretation is de novo)
Teigen v. State, 749 N.W.2d 505 (N.D. 2008) (primary purpose of statutory interpretation is legislative intent)
Holbach v. City of Minot, 817 N.W.2d 340 (N.D. 2012) (statutory language interpreted in its ordinary sense; context matters)