The issue here is whether the Employment Appeals Board correctly interpreted ORS 657.155 (3) in deciding that сlaimant, a licensed practical nurse, was ineligible for unemployment benefits for the weeks during whiсh she refused to accept work as a licensed practical nurse for any shift other than the day shift.
Claimant had been employed at a hospital in Pendleton. Her employment was terminated because of mandatory retirement at age 65. Claimant then filed her claim for unemployment bеnefits. She was referred to another hospital in the Pendleton area for possible employment as a licensed practical nurse. This hospital offered her work consisting of four days per week on the day shift and one day per week on an evening shift. Claimant refused this work because according to her it was necessary for her to be with her husband during times other than the day shift. The evidencе was that her husband suffers from a heart condition, has been hospitalized numerous times because of this, has dizzy spells, is under the care of a physician, and is taking medication for his condition. Claimant’s husband operates a business in Pendleton during the daytime.
ORS 657.155 provides:
“An unemployed individual shall be eligible to receive benefits with respect to any week only if the administrator finds that:
* # # #
“(3) He is able to work, is available for work, and is actively seeking and unable to obtain suitablе work. * * *
U% # # # * 5?
OES 657.190 provides:
“In determining whether or not any work is suitable for an individual, the administrator shall consider, among other factors, the degree of risk involved to Ms health, safety and morals, Ms physical fitness and prior training, Ms experience and prior earnings, his length of unemployment and prospects for securing local work in Ms customary occupation and the distance of the available work from Ms residence.”
We have not been cited to any statute or Oregon decision dealing precisely with the questiоn of whether claimant’s reasons for limiting the time when she would work disqualified her from unemployment benefits. However,
Callaghan v. Morgan,
“ ‘® * * Claimant’s activities during the weeks in question and testimony as to the hours he would accept employment conclusively establish he was neither available for work or actively seеldng all sMtable work. These requirements of the law are satisfied only when the individual is ready and willing to accept work for hours normal to the. occupation and has made a sincere and reasоnable effort to secure work. Being available to accept work' for all hours except- one shift or a part of one shift does not satisfy this eligibility condition of the law. «= íí (Emphasis supplied.)9 Or App at 118 .
Thе statutes of some states, contrary to the Oregon statutory scheme, make specific prоvisions for part-time availability. The jurisdictions which do not are split on the question of whether a claimant may be considered “available for work” if he places time limits on his availability. Broden, Law оf Social Security and Unemployment Insurance 340, § 8.18 (1962); Annotation, 35 ALB3d 1129 (1971). The majority of jurisdictions with statutes similar to Oregon’s appears to hold that one who restricts the hours of availability based upon domestic considerations is not eligible for benefits.
Goings v. Riley,
98 NH 93,
We think the rule laid down in the above eases is the better one. While sound public policy indicates that concern for family is to be encouraged, it does not follow that unemployment compensation may be used to foster it. Unemployment comрensation is designed to ease the burden of those who are generally available in the labоr market but for whom no suitable gainful employment is available. It was not created to ease the burden of those who for one reason or another are not generally available. Nursing is an occupation which by its very nature must be carried on at all hours, not just during daylight hours. The statement of the Michi
gan Supreme Court in
Ford Motor Co. v. Unemp. Comp. Comn.,
“* * * There is nothing in the statute to justify the conclusion that the legislature intended a claimant might limit his employment to certain hours of the day where the work he is qualified to perform is not likewisе limited. It may be assumed that, in a so-called ‘around-the-clock’ operation, the work on different shifts does not vary in character. When claimant stated she would not accept work excеpt on the afternoon shift, she clearly made herself unavailable for work of the character that she was qualified to perform. * * #”
Affirmed.