2017 ORS 656.536¹
Premium charges for coverage of reforestation cooperative workers based on prevailing wage
  • manner of determining prevailing wage

(1) The premiums charged by an insurer for coverage under this chapter for members of a workers’ cooperative engaged primarily in reforestation work and all computations for benefits payable to such individuals under this chapter shall be based on the prevailing rate of wage paid to individuals performing the same work in the same locality as members of the workers’ cooperative.

(2) Each time a cooperative contracts for services, the cooperative shall determine the prevailing rate of wage of each job category involved in performance of the contract. The determination of the prevailing rate of wage shall be filed with the insurer and used during the term of the contract. If a dispute arises between the workers’ cooperative and the insurer concerning the propriety of the prevailing rate of wage determination by the workers’ cooperative, the Director of the Department of Consumer and Business Services shall determine the appropriate prevailing rate of wage.

(3) The determination of the prevailing rate of wage shall be based on the best evidence available concerning wages paid to employees who do not have an ownership interest in the contracting enterprise performing the same work under similar conditions in the same locality as the cooperative. If no such work is being performed in the same locality at the time the workers’ cooperative engages in a contract for services, the best evidence available from the latest such contract for services for the same work under similar conditions in the nearest locality shall be used by the workers’ cooperative to determine the prevailing rate of wage.

(4) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, in no case shall the prevailing rate of wage used for the purpose of this section be less than the rate of wage specified in the contract for services as the minimum wage to be paid for services performed under the contract. If no such minimum wage requirement is specified in the contract for services, the most recent such contract for services for the same work under similar conditions in the nearest locality which specifies minimum wages shall be used to determine the prevailing rate of wage.

(5) As used in this section:

(a) “Prevailing rate of wage” means the average wage paid to employees who do not have an ownership interest in the contracting enterprise performing the same work under similar conditions in the same locality as the cooperative.

(b) “Workers’ cooperative” means an enterprise:

(A) Formed pursuant to ORS chapter 62.

(B) The membership of which is limited to individuals who maintain and operate the enterprise.

(C) The members of which each have equal voting power in the control of the enterprise.

(D) The profits of which are distributed to each member on the basis of the quantity or value of the services performed by that individual as a member of the cooperative.

(E) Which makes no dividend or financial or monetary return or any other payment based on capital investment except as provided in subparagraph (D) of this paragraph or at a strictly limited rate of interest agreed upon at the time the capital is invested.

(F) Receives not less than 80 percent of its gross income from engaging in reforestation work and related activity, including but not limited to tree planting, brush clearing, precommercial thinning, trail building, trail maintenance, fire fighting, timber stand examinations, cone picking, tubing, conifer release and roadside brush clearing. [1981 c.279 §2]

Law Review Cita­tions

55 OLR 432-445 (1976); 16 WLR 519 (1979); 22 WLR 559 (1986)

Chapter 656

Notes of Decisions

Party having af­firm­a­tive of any issue must prove it by preponderance of evidence unless legislature fixes some different quantum of proof. Hutcheson v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 288 Or 51, 602 P2d 268 (1979)

Amend­ments to existing statutes and enact­ment of addi­tional statutes by 1995 legisla­tion generally apply to pending cases and to orders still ap­pealable on June 7, 1995, effective date. Volk v. America West Air­lines, 135 Or App 565, 899 P2d 746 (1995), Sup Ct review denied

Amend­ments to existing statutes and enact­ment of addi­tional statutes by 1995 legisla­tion do not extend or shorten procedural time limita­tions with regard to ac­tions taken prior to June 7, 1995, effective date. Motel 6 v. McMasters, 135 Or App 583, 899 P2d 1212 (1995)

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Benefit unavailability for inmates engaged in prison work programs, (1996) Vol 48, p 134

Law Review Cita­tions

24 WLR 321, 341 (1988); 32 WLR 217 (1996)

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 656—Workers’ Compensation, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors656.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2017, Chapter 656, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano656.­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.