(1) As used in this section, "part-time worker" means an individual whose normal work is in an occupation in which his services are not required for the customary scheduled full-time hours prevailing in the establishment in which he is employed or who, owing to personal circumstances, does not customarily work the customary scheduled full-time hours prevailing in the establishment in which he is employed.
(2) The director of the division shall prescribe fair and reasonable general rules applicable to part-time workers for determining their full-time weekly wage and the total wages for employment by employers required to qualify such workers for benefits. The rules, with respect to such part-time workers, shall supersede any inconsistent provisions of articles 70 to 82 of this title but, so far as practicable, shall secure results reasonably similar to those provided in the analogous provisions of articles 70 to 82 of this title.
Source: L. 36, 3rd Ex. Sess.: p. 14, § 3. L. 37: p. 1250, § 1. CSA: C. 167A, § 3. L. 39: p. 568, § 1. L. 41: p. 762, § 3. CRS 53: § 82-4-5. C.R.S. 1963: § 82-4-5. L. 86: (2) amended, p. 488, § 87, effective July 1.
ANNOTATION
Annotator's note. Cases included in the annotations to this section which refer to the industrial commission were decided prior to the enactment of 1986 Senate Bill No. 12 which abolished said commission and transferred its powers, duties, and functions under this section to the director of the division.
Statute defines two types of part-time workers. Redmond v. Indus. Comm'n, 32 Colo. App. 134, 509 P.2d 1277, modified, 183 Colo. 14, 514 P.2d 623 (1973).
Because the "or" in subsection (1) is not inclusive, but is in the alternative. Redmond v. Indus. Comm'n, 32 Colo. App. 134, 509 P.2d 1277, modified, 183 Colo. 14, 514 P.2d 623 (1973).
Commission is directed to comply with this statute and prescribe fair and reasonable rules which will afford part-time workers benefits due them. Redmond v. Indus. Comm'n, 32 Colo. App. 134, 509 P.2d 1277, modified, 183 Colo. 14, 514 P.2d 623 (1973).
Essential question in each case with regard to eligibility of a part-time worker for unemployment benefits is whether the particular part-time worker claimant so restricted his availability for suitable work or so restricted his ability to actively seek work, that — in relation to the condition of the surrounding labor market — he cannot be deemed to have met the eligibility requirements. Indus. Comm'n v. Redmond, 183 Colo. 14, 514 P.2d 623 (1973).
Part-time worker must comply with § 8-73-107. A part-time worker under this section must comply with other statutory eligibility requirements under § 8-73-107 such as he must be "available for all work deemed suitable", and he must be "actively seeking work". Indus. Comm'n v. Redmond, 183 Colo. 14, 514 P.2d 623 (1973).
But part-time workers should be afforded benefits notwithstanding inconsistent provisions. Provisions of § 8-73-107, that a claimant must be able to work and must be available for all work deemed suitable pursuant to § 8-73-108, should not prevent the intent of the general assembly from being carried out, and that intent, as evidenced by this section, is to the effect that part-time workers should be afforded benefits notwithstanding inconsistent provisions elsewhere in the act. Redmond v. Indus. Comm'n, 32 Colo. App. 134, 509 P.2d 1277, modified, 183 Colo. 14, 514 P.2d 623 (1973).
Full-time college student afforded part-time worker benefits. This section clearly expresses a legislative intent to afford benefits to certain part-time workers, and the claimant was such a worker, and had the general assembly intended not to afford part-time worker benefits to full-time college students, it could easily have so stated. Indus. Comm'n v. Redmond, 183 Colo. 14, 514 P.2d 623 (1973).
And part-time worker who is full-time college student need not be available for full-time work in order to qualify for unemployment benefits. Indus. Comm'n v. Redmond, 183 Colo. 14, 514 P.2d 623 (1973).