Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 654.005

Definitions

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

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

      (1) “Board” means the Workers’ Compensation Board created by ORS 656.712.

      (2) “Department” means the Department of Consumer and Business Services.

      (3) “Director” means the Director of the Department of Consumer and Business Services.

      (4) “Employee” includes:

      (a) Any individual, including a minor whether lawfully or unlawfully employed, who engages to furnish services for a remuneration, financial or otherwise, subject to the direction and control of an employer.

      (b) Salaried, elected and appointed officials of the state, state agencies, counties, cities, school districts and other public corporations.

      (c) Any individual who is provided with workers’ compensation coverage as a subject worker pursuant to ORS chapter 656, whether by operation of law or by election.

      (5) “Employer” includes:

      (a) Any person who has one or more employees.

      (b) Any sole proprietor or member of a partnership who elects workers’ compensation coverage as a subject worker pursuant to ORS 656.128.

      (c) Any successor or assignee of an employer. As used in this paragraph, “successor” means a business or enterprise that is substantially the same entity as the predecessor employer according to criteria adopted by the department by rule.

      (6) “Owner” means every person having ownership, control or custody of any place of employment or of the construction, repair or maintenance of any place of employment.

      (7) “Person” means one or more individuals, legal representatives, partnerships, joint ventures, associations, corporations (whether or not organized for profit), business trusts, any organized group of persons, the state, state agencies, counties, municipal corporations, school districts and other public corporations or subdivisions.

      (8)(a) “Place of employment” includes:

      (A) Every place, whether fixed or movable or moving, whether indoors or out or underground, and the premises and structures appurtenant thereto, where either temporarily or permanently an employee works or is intended to work; and

      (B) Every place where there is carried on any process, operation or activity related, either directly or indirectly, to an employer’s industry, trade, business or occupation, including a labor camp, wherever located, provided by an employer for employees or by another person engaged in providing living quarters or shelters for employees.

      (b) “Place of employment” does not include:

      (A) Any place where the only employment involves nonsubject workers employed in or about a private home; and

      (B) Any corporate farm where the only employment involves the farm’s family members, including parents, spouses, sisters, brothers, daughters, sons, daughters-in-law, sons-in-law, nieces, nephews or grandchildren. [Amended by 1973 c.833 §4; 1975 c.102 §2; 1977 c.804 §34; 1987 c.373 §30; 1993 c.744 §17; 1999 c.433 §1; 2007 c.612 §1]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 25 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1954–2025 · leading case: Cain v. BOVIS LEND LEASE, INC.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Cain v. BOVIS LEND LEASE, INC. (2011) ord · cites it 7× “§ 654.005(4)(a) & (c). An “Owner” is “every person having ownership, control or custody of any place of employment or of the construction, repair or maintenance of any place of employment.”
Brown v. Boise Cascade Corp. (1997) orctapp · cites it 4× “” ORS 654.005(6). 11 Defendant owned the St.”
Skeeters v. Skeeters (1964) or · cites it 5× “5 (promulgated by the State Industrial Accident Commission pursuant to ORS 654.005 to 654.100). Specifically, the complaint charged the defendants failed to (1) equip the rock crusher with adequate guards and baffles to prevent rocks from coming into contact with moving belts…”
OR-OSHA v. Laborworks Ind. / Tradesman Int. (2025) orctapp · cites it 21× “On review, OR-OSHA con- tends that the ALJ misconstrued ORS 654.005, the statu- tory provision defining who is a subject employee and who is a subject employer, to conclude that respondents were not employers subject to the OSEA.”
Moe v. Beck (1990) orctapp · cites it 5× “” ORS 654.005(6). The affidavits submitted by the parties establish that JB Rock contacted Franklin to secure financing for the purchase of the truck.”
Moe v. Beck (1991) or · cites it 4× “” ORS 654.005(6) defines owner to include “every person having ownership, control or custody of any place of employment * * There is no claim that the defendant had *504 either custody or control of the truck.”
OR-OSHA v. Laborworks Ind. / Tradesman Int. (2025) orctapp · cites it 21× “On review, OR-OSHA con- tends that the ALJ misconstrued ORS 654.005, the statu- tory provision defining who is a subject employee and who is a subject employer, to conclude that respondents were not employers subject to the OSEA.”
Flores v. Metro MacHinery Rigging, Inc. (1989) orctapp · cites it 2× “ORS 654.005(4) defines “employee” for the purposes of the SEA: “ ‘Employee’ means any individual * * * who engages to furnish services for a remuneration, financial or otherwise, subject to the direction and control of an employer, and includes * * * any individual who is…”
Miller v. Georgia-Pacific Corp. (1983) or “* * every place, whether fixed or movable or moving, whether indoors or out or underground, and the premises and structures appurtenant thereto, where either temporarily or permanently an employe works * * * and every place where is carried on any process, operation or activity…”
Hillman v. Northern Wasco County PUD (1958) or “* * * * # The commission may make, establish, promulgate and enforce all necessary and reasonable rules, regulations and provisions for the purpose of carrying ORS 654.005 to 654.100 into effect and in reference to the investigation of all violations of said statutes and fixing…”
Ritter v. BEALS (1961) or “Earlier statutes now found in ORS 654.005 to 654.180 are sometimes called the safety act: "654.”
Sullivan v. Kizer (1992) orctapp · cites it 2× “300; ORS 654.005(13); ORS 659.010(6). Moreover, the legislature has enacted a comprehensive set of laws governing the rights and responsibilities of public employers in connection with collective bargaining and strikes, but did not declare hiring strikebreakers to be an unfair…”
Show all 25 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 654.005(13) — 1 case
Sullivan v. Kizer (1992) orctapp “300; ORS 654.005(13); ORS 659.010(6). Moreover, the legislature has enacted a comprehensive set of laws governing the rights and responsibilities of public employers in connection with collective bargaining and strikes, but did not declare hiring strikebreakers to be an unfair…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 654.005(4) — 3 cases
Flores v. Metro MacHinery Rigging, Inc. (1989) orctapp “ORS 654.005(4) defines “employee” for the purposes of the SEA: “ ‘Employee’ means any individual * * * who engages to furnish services for a remuneration, financial or otherwise, subject to the direction and control of an employer, and includes * * * any individual who is…”
OR-OSHA v. Laborworks Ind. / Tradesman Int. (2025) orctapp “On review, OR-OSHA con- tends that the ALJ misconstrued ORS 654.005, the statu- tory provision defining who is a subject employee and who is a subject employer, to conclude that respondents were not employers subject to the OSEA.”
OR-OSHA v. Laborworks Ind. / Tradesman Int. (2025) orctapp “On review, OR-OSHA con- tends that the ALJ misconstrued ORS 654.005, the statu- tory provision defining who is a subject employee and who is a subject employer, to conclude that respondents were not employers subject to the OSEA.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 654.005(4)(a) — 4 cases
Cain v. BOVIS LEND LEASE, INC. (2011) ord “§ 654.005(4)(a) & (c). An “Owner” is “every person having ownership, control or custody of any place of employment or of the construction, repair or maintenance of any place of employment.”
OR-OSHA v. Laborworks Ind. / Tradesman Int. (2025) orctapp “On review, OR-OSHA con- tends that the ALJ misconstrued ORS 654.005, the statu- tory provision defining who is a subject employee and who is a subject employer, to conclude that respondents were not employers subject to the OSEA.”
OR-OSHA v. Laborworks Ind. / Tradesman Int. (2025) orctapp “On review, OR-OSHA con- tends that the ALJ misconstrued ORS 654.005, the statu- tory provision defining who is a subject employee and who is a subject employer, to conclude that respondents were not employers subject to the OSEA.”
Santiago v. Farm West Labor Contracting Co. (2025) ord
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 654.005(4)(c) — 2 cases
OR-OSHA v. Laborworks Ind. / Tradesman Int. (2025) orctapp “On review, OR-OSHA con- tends that the ALJ misconstrued ORS 654.005, the statu- tory provision defining who is a subject employee and who is a subject employer, to conclude that respondents were not employers subject to the OSEA.”
OR-OSHA v. Laborworks Ind. / Tradesman Int. (2025) orctapp “On review, OR-OSHA con- tends that the ALJ misconstrued ORS 654.005, the statu- tory provision defining who is a subject employee and who is a subject employer, to conclude that respondents were not employers subject to the OSEA.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 654.005(5) — 6 cases
Flores v. Metro MacHinery Rigging, Inc. (1989) orctapp “ORS 654.005(4) defines “employee” for the purposes of the SEA: “ ‘Employee’ means any individual * * * who engages to furnish services for a remuneration, financial or otherwise, subject to the direction and control of an employer, and includes * * * any individual who is…”
Sullivan v. Kizer (1992) orctapp “300; ORS 654.005(13); ORS 659.010(6). Moreover, the legislature has enacted a comprehensive set of laws governing the rights and responsibilities of public employers in connection with collective bargaining and strikes, but did not declare hiring strikebreakers to be an unfair…”
OR-OSHA v. Laborworks Ind. / Tradesman Int. (2025) orctapp “On review, OR-OSHA con- tends that the ALJ misconstrued ORS 654.005, the statu- tory provision defining who is a subject employee and who is a subject employer, to conclude that respondents were not employers subject to the OSEA.”
OR-OSHA v. Laborworks Ind. / Tradesman Int. (2025) orctapp “On review, OR-OSHA con- tends that the ALJ misconstrued ORS 654.005, the statu- tory provision defining who is a subject employee and who is a subject employer, to conclude that respondents were not employers subject to the OSEA.”
Santiago v. Farm West Labor Contracting Co. (2025) ord
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 654.005(5)(a) — 3 cases
Cain v. BOVIS LEND LEASE, INC. (2011) ord “§ 654.005(4)(a) & (c). An “Owner” is “every person having ownership, control or custody of any place of employment or of the construction, repair or maintenance of any place of employment.”
OR-OSHA v. Laborworks Ind. / Tradesman Int. (2025) orctapp “On review, OR-OSHA con- tends that the ALJ misconstrued ORS 654.005, the statu- tory provision defining who is a subject employee and who is a subject employer, to conclude that respondents were not employers subject to the OSEA.”
OR-OSHA v. Laborworks Ind. / Tradesman Int. (2025) orctapp “On review, OR-OSHA con- tends that the ALJ misconstrued ORS 654.005, the statu- tory provision defining who is a subject employee and who is a subject employer, to conclude that respondents were not employers subject to the OSEA.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 654.005(6) — 9 cases
Brown v. Boise Cascade Corp. (1997) orctapp “” ORS 654.005(6). 11 Defendant owned the St.”
Moe v. Beck (1990) orctapp “” ORS 654.005(6). The affidavits submitted by the parties establish that JB Rock contacted Franklin to secure financing for the purchase of the truck.”
Moe v. Beck (1991) or “” ORS 654.005(6) defines owner to include “every person having ownership, control or custody of any place of employment * * There is no claim that the defendant had *504 either custody or control of the truck.”
Cain v. BOVIS LEND LEASE, INC. (2011) ord “§ 654.005(4)(a) & (c). An “Owner” is “every person having ownership, control or custody of any place of employment or of the construction, repair or maintenance of any place of employment.”
OR-OSHA v. Laborworks Ind. / Tradesman Int. (2025) orctapp “On review, OR-OSHA con- tends that the ALJ misconstrued ORS 654.005, the statu- tory provision defining who is a subject employee and who is a subject employer, to conclude that respondents were not employers subject to the OSEA.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 654.005(7) — 2 cases
OR-OSHA v. Laborworks Ind. / Tradesman Int. (2025) orctapp “On review, OR-OSHA con- tends that the ALJ misconstrued ORS 654.005, the statu- tory provision defining who is a subject employee and who is a subject employer, to conclude that respondents were not employers subject to the OSEA.”
OR-OSHA v. Laborworks Ind. / Tradesman Int. (2025) orctapp “On review, OR-OSHA con- tends that the ALJ misconstrued ORS 654.005, the statu- tory provision defining who is a subject employee and who is a subject employer, to conclude that respondents were not employers subject to the OSEA.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 654.005(8) — 6 cases
Brown v. Boise Cascade Corp. (1997) orctapp “” ORS 654.005(6). 11 Defendant owned the St.”
Moe v. Beck (1991) or “” ORS 654.005(6) defines owner to include “every person having ownership, control or custody of any place of employment * * There is no claim that the defendant had *504 either custody or control of the truck.”
Moe v. Beck (1990) orctapp “” ORS 654.005(6). The affidavits submitted by the parties establish that JB Rock contacted Franklin to secure financing for the purchase of the truck.”
Arriola-Caballero v. Vermeer Manufacturing Company (2025) ord
Oregon Occupational Safety & Health Division v. Ostlie (1995) orctapp
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 654.005(8)(a) — 3 cases
Cain v. BOVIS LEND LEASE, INC. (2011) ord “§ 654.005(4)(a) & (c). An “Owner” is “every person having ownership, control or custody of any place of employment or of the construction, repair or maintenance of any place of employment.”
Tozer v. Katerra Construction LLC (2025) orctapp
Tozer v. Katerra Construction LLC (2025) orctapp
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 654.005(8)(b) — 1 case
Arriola-Caballero v. Vermeer Manufacturing Company (2025) ord
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 654.005(9) — 1 case
Miller v. Georgia-Pacific Corp. (1983) or “* * every place, whether fixed or movable or moving, whether indoors or out or underground, and the premises and structures appurtenant thereto, where either temporarily or permanently an employe works * * * and every place where is carried on any process, operation or activity…”
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.