Civil penalty for violations
- classification of violations
- payment and disposition of penalty moneys
Source:
Section 654.086 — Civil penalty for violations; classification of violations; payment and disposition of penalty moneys, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors654.html
.
See also annotations under ORS 654.050 in permanent edition.
Notes of Decisions
A jury trial is not required by Art. I, §17 of the Oregon Constitution for the imposition of a penalty imposed under this section. Accident Prevention Div. v. No. Am. Contractors, Inc., 22 Or App 614, 540 P2d 391 (1975)
Where monetary penalties assessed for violations under this section were within statutory limits, court was without power to redetermine assessment. Accident Prevention Division v. Van Eyk, 31 Or App 1355, 572 P2d 671 (1977), Sup Ct review denied
Under rules adopted by Accident Prevention Division under this section, hearings referee has no authority to impose penalties less than those required by rules. Accident Prevention Div. v. Asana, 110 Or App 103, 821 P2d 432 (1991)
Assessment of employer’s exercise of reasonable diligence requires consideration of (1) time of violation; (2) employer’s proximity to and opportunity to witness violation; (3) foreseeability of violation; (4) general circumstances of, and level of danger inherent in, work; (5) potential need for continuous supervision of employee; (6) nature and extent of employer’s other duties; (7) employee’s training and experience; and (8) extent and efficacy of employer’s safety programs. Oregon Occupational Safety and Health Division v. CBI Services, Inc., 254 Or App 466, 295 P3d 660 (2013), aff’d on other grounds, 356 Or 577, 341 P3d 701 (2014)
Under this section, whether employer “did not, and could not with the exercise of reasonable diligence, know of the presence of the violation” refers to what employer was capable of knowing or discovering under circumstances. Oregon Occupational Safety and Health Division v. CBI Services, Inc., 356 Or 577, 341 P3d 701 (2014)
Whether employer exercised “reasonable diligence” as used in phrase “could not with the exercise of reasonable diligence, know of the presence of the violation” is determination for agency to evaluate with specific factors. Oregon Occupational Safety and Health Division v. CBI Services, Inc., 356 Or 577, 341 P3d 701 (2014)
Agency must show why employer could, with exercise of reasonable diligence, have been aware of violation that agency inspector observed. Oregon Occupational Safety & Health Division v. CBI Services, Inc., 294 Or App 831, 432 P3d 321 (2018)
Law Review Citations
26 WLR 393 (1990)