Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes
Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 240.015 (2026)

Definitions

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      240.015 Definitions. As used in this chapter, unless the context clearly requires otherwise:

      (1) “Administrator” means the Administrator of the Personnel Division.

      (2) “Appointing authority” means an officer or agency having power to make appointments to positions in the state service.

      (3) “Board” means the Employment Relations Board.

      (4) “Class” or “classification” means a group of positions in the state classified service sufficiently alike in duties, authority and responsibilities that the same qualifications may reasonably be required for, and the same schedule of pay can be equitably applied to, all positions in the group.

      (5) “Division” means, except in the phrase “division of the service,” the Personnel Division referred to in ORS 240.055.

      (6) “Division of the service” means a state department or any division or branch thereof, any agency of the state government, or any branch of the state service, all the positions in which are under the same appointing authority.

      (7) “Job-sharing position” means a full-time position in the classified service that is classified as one that may be held by more than one individual on a shared time basis whereby the individuals holding the position work less than full-time.

      (8) “Regular employee” means an employee who has been appointed to a position in the classified service in accordance with this chapter after completing the trial service period.

      (9) “State service” means all offices and positions in the employ of the state other than those of commissioned, warrant and enlisted personnel in the military and naval services thereof. However, as provided in ORS 396.330, the term includes members of the Oregon National Guard or Oregon Civil Defense Force who are not serving pursuant to provisions of Title 10 or 32 of the United States Code and who are employed as state employees in the Oregon Military Department. [Amended by 1959 c.690 §1; 1969 c.80 §30; 1975 c.147 §9; 1979 c.302 §4; 1979 c.468 §4a; 1995 c.114 §1; 2005 c.22 §182; 2017 c.472 §2]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1971–1978 · leading case: Beistel v. Pub. Employe Relations Bd., 486 P.2d 1305 (Or. Ct. App. 1971).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Beistel v. Pub. Employe Relations Bd., 486 P.2d 1305 (Or. Ct. App. 1971). “” ORS 240.015 (1) defines “appointing authority” as “* * * an officer or agency having power to make appointments to positions in the state service.”
Robbins v. Exec. Dep't, Manpower Plan. Div., 580 P.2d 194 (Or. Ct. App. 1978). “New Position The harder question remains: was the proposed reassignment of petitioner to Salem a transfer "to another position in the same class or rank, so that petitioner was obliged to accept it?” "Class” is defined in ORS 240.015(2) as "* * * a group of positions * * *…”
Robbins v. Exec. Dep't, 571 P.2d 154 (Or. Ct. App. 1977). “” ORS 240.015(2). *[773] The other issue raised by petitioner concerning eligibility for unemployment compensation is not properly before us.”
Lamb v. Cleveland, 559 P.2d 527 (Or. Ct. App. 1977). “ORS 240.015(6). Assuming petitioner had sent the letter to the Board it would not have been a sufficient notice of appeal.”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 240.015(2): 2 cases
Robbins v. Exec. Dep't, Manpower Plan. Div., 580 P.2d 194 (Or. Ct. App. 1978). “New Position The harder question remains: was the proposed reassignment of petitioner to Salem a transfer "to another position in the same class or rank, so that petitioner was obliged to accept it?” "Class” is defined in ORS 240.015(2) as "* * * a group of positions * * *…”
Robbins v. Exec. Dep't, 571 P.2d 154 (Or. Ct. App. 1977). “” ORS 240.015(2). *[773] The other issue raised by petitioner concerning eligibility for unemployment compensation is not properly before us.”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 240.015(6): 1 case
Lamb v. Cleveland, 559 P.2d 527 (Or. Ct. App. 1977). “ORS 240.015(6). Assuming petitioner had sent the letter to the Board it would not have been a sufficient notice of appeal.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.