Occupational Safety and Health

ORS 654.295
Application of Oregon Safe Employment Act


(1)

Nothing contained in ORS 654.001 (Short title) to 654.295 (Application of Oregon Safe Employment Act), 654.412 (Definitions for ORS 654.412 to 654.423) to 654.423 (Use of physical force by health care employee in self-defense against assault) and 654.750 (Definitions for ORS 654.750 to 654.780) to 654.780 (Providing basic information to employees) shall invalidate any existing occupational safety or health regulation, rule, standard or order which is not clearly inconsistent with the purposes and provisions of ORS 654.001 (Short title) to 654.295 (Application of Oregon Safe Employment Act), 654.412 (Definitions for ORS 654.412 to 654.423) to 654.423 (Use of physical force by health care employee in self-defense against assault) and 654.750 (Definitions for ORS 654.750 to 654.780) to 654.780 (Providing basic information to employees).

(2)

Where any part of a law, regulation, rule, standard or order is found to be clearly inconsistent with ORS 654.001 (Short title) to 654.295 (Application of Oregon Safe Employment Act), 654.412 (Definitions for ORS 654.412 to 654.423) to 654.423 (Use of physical force by health care employee in self-defense against assault) and 654.750 (Definitions for ORS 654.750 to 654.780) to 654.780 (Providing basic information to employees) and declared to be invalid, it is the intent of the Legislative Assembly that the remaining provisions of such law, regulation, rule, standard or order remain in effect as fully as if the invalid part had not been adopted. [1973 c.833 §36]
§§ 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


Source

Last accessed
Jun. 26, 2021