Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 240.316 (2026)

Trial service; regular status; procedures for transfer, demotion and separation of employees

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

      240.316 Trial service; regular status; procedures for transfer, demotion and separation of employees. (1)(a) Persons initially appointed to or promoted to a permanent or seasonal position in state service shall be subject to a trial service period.

      (b) An appointing authority has the discretion to subject an employee to a trial service period when:

      (A) A management service employee or a classified, unrepresented employee transfers to a different agency;

      (B) A management service employee or a classified, unrepresented employee transfers back to the same agency after an absence of more than one year;

      (C) A former management service employee or former classified, unrepresented employee is reemployed by the same agency after an absence of more than one year; or

      (D) A former management service employee or former classified, unrepresented employee is reemployed by a different agency.

      (c) Any employee who serves the trial service period designated by the Personnel Division or a delegated operating agency for a given classification or as described in paragraph (b) of this subsection shall be given regular employee status.

      (2) Employees who have acquired regular status will not be subject to separation except for cause as defined by ORS 240.555 or lack of work, curtailment of funds, or reorganization requiring a reduction in force.

      (3) Procedures shall be established by the division to provide for the layoff and opportunity for reemployment of employees separated for reasons other than cause, which shall take into account the needs of the service, qualifications, quality of performance, relative merit and length of service.

      (4) Procedures shall also be established by the division for the transfer, discipline or demotion of employees for the good of the service or separation of employees whose conduct or performance continues to be improper or inadequate after reasonable attempts have been made to correct it, where appropriate. [1979 c.468 §23; 1981 c.155 §1; 1989 c.134 §1; 1989 c.890 §11]

      240.320 [Amended by 1969 c.80 §58; repealed by 1979 c.468 §1]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1986–2008 · leading case: Bjurstrom v. Oregon Lottery, 120 P.3d 1235 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
Bjurstrom v. Oregon Lottery, 120 P.3d 1235 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 4× “203(1) and (2) were not necessary because they would replicate existing protections for whistleblowers made possible under former ORS 240.316(5) (1987), repealed by Or Laws 1989, ch 890, § 11.”
Olsen v. Deschutes Cnty., 127 P.3d 655 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “That statute provided: "ORS 240.316, 659.035 and 659.505 to 659.545 are not intended to: "* * * * * "(6) Restrict or impair any judicial right of action an employee or an employer has under existing law.”
Thurston v. Box Elder Cnty., 835 P.2d 165 (Utah 1992). · cites it 2× “§ 23-2525(14) (1991) (performance record and seniority in service shall be considered); Or. Rev.Stat. § 240.316(3) (1991) (county shall take into account needs of the service, qualifications, quality of performance, relative merit, and length of service).”
Serv. Employees Int'l Union Local 503 v. State, Dep't of Admin. Servs., 54 P.3d 1043 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). “’ ORS 240.316(2). Temporary employees also are not entitled to health benefits, whereas regular-status employees are entitled to health benefits.”
Rushing v. SAIF Corp., 196 P.3d 115 (Or. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “753(1) expressly provides that the provisions of ORS chapter 240, among a number of others, *670 “do not apply to the State Accident Insurance Fund Corporation.”
Oregon Pub. Employées Union v. State, 22 P.3d 251 (Or. Ct. App. 2001). “” ORS 240.316(2). Temporary employees also are not entitled to health benefits, whereas regular-status employees are entitled to health benefits.”
Seiu v. Das, 54 P.3d 1043 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). “' ORS 240.316(2). Temporary employees also are not entitled to health benefits, whereas regular-status employees are entitled to health benefits.”
Demaray v. Dep't of Env't Quality, 730 P.2d 547 (Or. 1986). · cites it 2× “ORS 240.316(5) permits an employe to report activities of the supervisor which an employe believes are unlawful, and protects the employes against reprisals resulting from their disclosures.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 240.316(2) — 4 cases
Serv. Employees Int'l Union Local 503 v. State, Dep't of Admin. Servs., 54 P.3d 1043 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). “’ ORS 240.316(2). Temporary employees also are not entitled to health benefits, whereas regular-status employees are entitled to health benefits.”
Rushing v. SAIF Corp., 196 P.3d 115 (Or. Ct. App. 2008). “753(1) expressly provides that the provisions of ORS chapter 240, among a number of others, *670 “do not apply to the State Accident Insurance Fund Corporation.”
Oregon Pub. Employées Union v. State, 22 P.3d 251 (Or. Ct. App. 2001). “” ORS 240.316(2). Temporary employees also are not entitled to health benefits, whereas regular-status employees are entitled to health benefits.”
Seiu v. Das, 54 P.3d 1043 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). “' ORS 240.316(2). Temporary employees also are not entitled to health benefits, whereas regular-status employees are entitled to health benefits.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 240.316(3) — 1 case
Thurston v. Box Elder Cnty., 835 P.2d 165 (Utah 1992). “§ 23-2525(14) (1991) (performance record and seniority in service shall be considered); Or. Rev.Stat. § 240.316(3) (1991) (county shall take into account needs of the service, qualifications, quality of performance, relative merit, and length of service).”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 240.316(5) — 2 cases
Bjurstrom v. Oregon Lottery, 120 P.3d 1235 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). “203(1) and (2) were not necessary because they would replicate existing protections for whistleblowers made possible under former ORS 240.316(5) (1987), repealed by Or Laws 1989, ch 890, § 11.”
Demaray v. Dep't of Env't Quality, 730 P.2d 547 (Or. 1986). “ORS 240.316(5) permits an employe to report activities of the supervisor which an employe believes are unlawful, and protects the employes against reprisals resulting from their disclosures.”
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.