ORS 654.078¹
Contesting violations
  • hearing
  • admissibility in criminal or civil proceedings of stipulations involving violations

(1) An employer may contest a citation, a proposed assessment of civil penalty and the period of time fixed for correction of a violation, or any of these, by filing with the Department of Consumer and Business Services, within 30 days after receipt of the citation, notice or order, a written request for a hearing before the Workers’ Compensation Board. Such a request need not be in any particular form, but shall specify the alleged violation that is contested and the grounds upon which the employer considers the citation or proposed penalty or correction period unjust or unlawful.

(2) An affected employee or representative of such employees may contest the time fixed for correction of a violation by filing with the department, within 30 days after the receipt by the employer of the citation, notice or order which fixes such time for correction, a written request for a hearing before the board. Such a request need not be in any particular form, but shall specify the violation in question and the grounds upon which the employee considers the correction period to be unreasonable.

(3) A hearing on any question relating to the validity of a citation or the proposed civil penalty to be assessed therefor shall not be granted unless a request for hearing is filed by the employer within the period specified in subsection (1) of this section. If a request for hearing is not so filed, the citation and the assessment of penalty as proposed shall be a final order of the department and shall not be subject to review by any agency or court.

(4) A hearing relating to the reasonableness of the time prescribed for the correction of a violation shall not be granted, except for good cause shown, unless a request for hearing is filed within the period specified in subsections (1) and (2) of this section. If a request for hearing is not so filed the time fixed for correction of the violation shall be a final order of the department and shall not be subject to review by any agency or court.

(5) Where an employer contests, in good faith and not solely for delay or avoidance of penalties, the period of time fixed for correction of a nonserious violation, such period of time shall not run between the date the request for hearing is filed and the date the order of the department becomes final by operation of law or on appeal.

(6) Where an employer or employee contests the period of time fixed for correction of a serious violation, any hearing on that issue shall be conducted as soon as possible and shall take precedence over other hearings conducted by the board under the 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 home 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).

(7) Where informal disposition of a contested case is made by stipulation, agreed settlement or a consent order, such stipulation, settlement or order shall not be pleaded or admissible in evidence as an admission or confession in any criminal prosecution or in any other civil proceeding that may be instituted against the employer, except in the case of a civil proceeding brought to enforce such stipulation, settlement or order. [1973 c.833 §18 (enacted in lieu of 654.055); 1977 c.804 §38; 2007 c.432 §1]

Notes of Decisions

Board is not authorized to grant attorney fees to prevailing party. Oregon Occupa­tional Safety v. Don Whitaker Logging, 123 Or App 498, 861 P2d 368 (1993), Sup Ct review denied

Where agency fails to substantially comply with procedural require­ments, cita­tion can be dismissed without demonstrating that procedural irregularity resulted in prejudice to employer. Oregon Occupa­tional Safety v. Ostlie, 136 Or App 284, 902 P2d 580 (1995)

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 (ORS 192.410 (Definitions for ORS 192.410 to 192.505) 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

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 654—Occupational Safety and Health, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­Archive/­2007ors654.­pdf (2007) (last ac­cessed Feb. 12, 2009).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2007, Chapter 654, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­654ano.­htm (2007) (last ac­cessed Feb. 12, 2009).
 
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent. Currency Information