Pam's Carpet Service, Inc. v. Employment Division

The majority concludes as a matter of law that approximately ten installers who "worked fairly regularly” for Pam’s during the audit period were, or might be determined to be, employes within the meaning of the Unemployment Compensation Law, but that those who worked only occasionally or briefly were independent contractors. In my view, this distinction is untenable. Either all of the installers were employes within the meaning of ORS 657.040 or none was.

A remedial statute is to be construed liberally to effectuate its purposes. Puget Sound B & D Co. v. SUCC, 168 Or 614, 126 P2d 37 (1942)…