2015 ORS 654.082¹
Prohibiting use of equipment involved in violation
  • red warning notice

(1) 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.

(2) 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.

(3) 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.

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/­ors/­ors654.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2015, Chapter 654, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano654.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
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.