2017 ORS 652.360¹
Contract exempting employer from liability or penalty not valid
  • exceptions

(1) 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.

(2) 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)

Atty. Gen. Opinions

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

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 (Definitions of employer and employee) to 652.405 (Disposition of wages collected by commissioner when payment cannot be made to person entitled thereto) when to do so would render pro­vi­sions of ORS 652.110 (Method of paying employees) to 652.250 (Public employee’s wages as affected by absence to engage in search or rescue operation) superfluous. Stout v. Citicorp Industrial Credit, Inc., 102 Or App 637, 796 P2d 373 (1990), Sup Ct review denied

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 652—Hours; Wages; Wage Claims; Records, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors652.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2017, Chapter 652, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano652.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
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.