Nw. Advancement, Inc. v. Wage & Hour Comm'n, 772 P.2d 943 (Or. Ct. App. 1989). · Go Syfert
Search
Nw. Advancement, Inc. v. Wage & Hour Comm'n, 772 P.2d 943 (Or. Ct. App. 1989). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
11 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Cramer v. Psychiatric Security Review Board (orctapp, 1993-08-04)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see, e.g." Cramer v. Psychiatric Security Review Board
Or. Ct. App. · 1993 · signal: see also · confidence low
Elect., 277 Or 447, 456 , 561 P2d 154 (1977); see also Northwest Advancement v. Wage and Hour Comm., 96 Or App 146, 148 , 772 P2d 934 , rev den 308 Or 315 (1989), cert den 496 US 907 (1990).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
NORTHWEST ADVANCEMENT, INC., Et Al, Petitioners,
v.
WAGE AND HOUR COMMISSION, Respondent; NORTHWEST ADVANCEMENT, INC., Et Al, Petitioners, v. BUREAU OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES, Respondent
01/86, CL01/86, CL02/86 CA A42520 (Control), CA A42899.
Court of Appeals of Oregon.
Apr 12, 1989.
772 P.2d 943
Gordon T. Carey, Jr., Portland, argued the cause and filed the brief for petitioners., Douglas F. Zier, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, Salem.
Richardson, Newman, Deits.
Cited by 5 opinions  |  Published
[*148] DEITS, J.

Petitioners seek review of final orders issued by the Bureau of Labor and Industries (Bureau) and the Wage and Hour Commission (WHC). The orders followed a consolidated hearing held by Bureau and WHC concerning alleged violations of statutes and regulations governing the employment of minors. Bureau’s order imposed civil penalties pursuant to ORS 653.370 that totaled $45,550, while WHC’s order revoked their right to hire minors in the future, pursuant to ORS 653.307(2). Both orders were based on 75 proven violations of the statutes and regulations. We affirm.

Most of the assignments of error in this case have been addressed in Northwest Advancement v. Bureau of Labor, 96 Or App 133, 772 P2d 943 (1989). In that case, we upheld the agencies’ application of the regulations and the issuance of a mandatory injunction requiring petitioners to comply with the regulations. Petitioners argue here that their activities are subject to regulation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and that Bureau and WHC therefore lacked authority to impose civil penalties or to revoke their right to hire minors. That issue was not raised before either Bureau or WHC, and we will not entertain it for the first time on appeal. See Hughes v. Adult & Family Services, 58 Or App 478, 484, 648 P2d 1324 (1982).

Petitioners also argue that Bureau erred in finding separate violations for separate offenses involving the same minors. They also assert that it erred in finding separate violations for each day that a regulation was violated. We disagree. ORS 653.370(1) provides:

“In addition to any other penalty provided by law, [Bureau] may impose upon any person not regulated under [FLSA] who violates ORS 653.305 to 653.370 or any rule adopted by [WHC] thereunder, a civil penalty not to exceed $1,000 for each violation.” (Emphasis supplied.)

Criminal sanctions are also available under ORS 653.991, which provides:

“Violation of any provision of this section or ORS 653.010 to 653.545 or of any rule or regulation adopted by the commission under ORS 653.307 shall be punishable as a misdemeanor.” (Emphasis supplied.)

[*149] We conclude that the language of the statutes clearly indicates that the legislature intended to allow separate punishment for each violation. [1]

Affirmed.

1

Petitioners’ remaining assignments of error do not merit discussion.