Occupational Safety and Health

ORS 654.082
Prohibiting use of equipment involved in violation

  • red warning notice


The Director of the Department of Consumer and Business Services, or an authorized representative of the director with the approval of the director or, pursuant to such rules and procedures as the director may prescribe, with the approval of the director, to preclude exposure to a condition which, if such exposure occurred would constitute a violation of any statute, or of any lawful regulation, rule, standard or order affecting employee safety or health at a place of employment, may preclude exposure by prohibiting use of the machine, equipment, apparatus or place of employment constituting such condition. When use is prohibited a red warning notice shall be posted in plain view of any person likely to use the same, calling attention to the condition, defect, lack of safeguard or unsafe or unhealthful place of employment and the fact that further use is prohibited.


No person shall use or operate any place of employment, machine, device, apparatus or equipment, after the red warning notice required by this section is posted, before such place of employment, machine, device, apparatus or equipment is made safe and healthful, and the required safeguards or safety appliances or devices are provided, and authorization for the removal of such red warning notice has been obtained from the director. However, nothing in this subsection prohibits an employer from directing employees to use or operate any such place of employment, machine, device, apparatus or equipment exclusively for the purpose of remedying the violation as specifically designated by the director in the red warning notice.


No person shall deface, destroy or remove any red warning notice posted pursuant to this section until authorization for the removal of such notice has been obtained from the director. [1973 c.833 §20 (enacted in lieu of 654.050); 1975 c.102 §3; 1977 c.804 §39; 1977 c.869 §2a]

See annotations under ORS 654.050 in permanent edition.

§§ 654.001 to 654.295

Notes of Decisions

Safety codes under Oregon Safe Employment Act apply to all work places and not only to work places covered by Employer Liability Law. Miller v. Ga.-Pacific, 294 Or 750, 662 P2d 718 (1983)

Violation of Workers' Compensation Department rule resulting in injury to nonemploye is not negligence per se, but it does not follow that rule is irrelevant to determination of due care in case grounded in common law negligence. Shahtout v. Emco Garbage Co., 298 Or 598, 695 P2d 897 (1985)

Where right of action for injuries exists resulting from violation of Oregon Safe Employment Act, right belongs only to employee whom Act directly protects not "indirect" employee. Flores v. Metro Machinery Rigging, Inc., 99 Or App 636, 783 P2d 1024 (1989), Sup Ct review denied

Referee did not err in finding employer in violation of rule requiring workers to be "properly...supervised" where employee killed in accident was skilled and experienced supervisor working with two other supervisors during strike, but none of the three was in charge. Accident Prevention Div. v. Roseburg Forest Prod., 106 Or App 69, 806 P2d 172 (1991)

Whether identity of complainant falsely reporting violation is subject to disclosure under Oregon public records law ([former] ORS 192.410 et seq.) depends on complainant's good or bad faith in making complaint. Hood Technology Corp. v. Oregon Occupational Safety and Health Division, 168 Or App 293, 7 P3d 564 (2000)

Chapter 654

Notes of Decisions

An administrative regulation requires Accident Prevention Division to prove reasonableness of civil penalty imposed for violation of Oregon State Employment Act. Accident Prevention Div. v. Sunrise Seed, 26 Or App 879, 554 P2d 550 (1976)

Accident Prevention Division rule allowing citation for "repeat violation" of division's safety standards while prior citation is contested and not yet upheld by final order is within agency's authority to promulgate rules consistent with purpose of Act to assure as far as possible safe and healthful working conditions. Accident Prevention Div. v. Hoffman Construction, 64 Or App 73, 667 P2d 543 (1983)

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Inapplicability of occupational safety and health laws to inmates in prison work programs, (1996) Vol 48, p 134


Last accessed
Jun. 26, 2021