ORS 652.360
Contract exempting employer from liability or penalty not valid

  • exceptions


An employer may not by special contract or any other means exempt the employer from any provision of or liability or penalty imposed by ORS 652.310 (Definitions of employer and employee) to 652.414 (Procedure for payment from fund) or any statute relating to the payment of wages, except insofar as the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries in writing approves a special contract or other arrangement between the employer and one or more of the employer’s employees. The commissioner may not give approval unless the commissioner finds that such contract or arrangement will not prejudicially affect the interest of the public or of the employees involved, and the commissioner may at any time retract such approval, first giving the employer not less than 30 days’ notice in writing.


A settlement between an employer and an employee of a known and identified claim arising under ORS 652.310 (Definitions of employer and employee) to 652.414 (Procedure for payment from fund) or any statute relating to the payment of wages does not require the commissioner’s approval if the settlement does not provide for the employee to relinquish a claim for additional or future violations. [Amended by 2001 c.116 §1]

Notes of Decisions

Wage reduction agreements entered into between employer and employes were not intended to exempt employer from "any provision of or liability or penalty imposed" by either payment of wages statutes or wage claim enforcement statutes. State ex rel Roberts v. Duco-Lam, Inc., 72 Or App 473, 696 P2d 561 (1985), Sup Ct review denied

Employer is not barred from asserting affirmative defense such as accord and satisfaction, waiver or estoppel where renegotiated or substituted employment agreement does not release employer from statutory right or obligation under wage payment statutes. Erickson v. American Golf Corp., 194 Or App 672, 96 P3d 843 (2004)

§§ 652.310 to 652.410

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Validity of 10-hour day, 40-hour week without overtime in public employment, (1972) Vol 35, p 1083

§§ 652.110 to 652.405

Notes of Decisions

Where employer was charged with criminal violation of Massachusetts payment of wages statute for failing to pay discharged employees for their unused vacation time, employer's policy of paying discharged employees for unused vacation time was not "employee welfare benefits plan" under section 3 (1) of Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and criminal action to enforce that policy is therefore not foreclosed by section 514 (a) of ERISA. Massachusetts v. Morash, 490 U.S. 107, 109 S. Ct. 1668, 104 L.Ed 98 (1989)

It is unnecessary to imply private right of action for employee against secured creditor in possession under ORS 652.310 to 652.405 when to do so would render provisions of ORS 652.110 to 652.250 superfluous. Stout v. Citicorp Industrial Credit, Inc., 102 Or App 637, 796 P2d 373 (1990), Sup Ct review denied


Last accessed
Jun. 26, 2021