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…”
Fields v. Fields (1958) or “Plaintiff further alleged that defendant had failed to comply with certain provisions of the basic safety code adopted by the State Industrial Accident Commission pursuant to ORS 654.005 to 654.100, which required that all projecting set screws in revolving parts be removed or…”
Howard v. Foster & Kleiser Co. (1958) or “40 (promulgated by the Industrial Accident Commission pursuant to ORS 654.005 to 654.100). The complaint charged that the defendant supplied the plaintiff with *520 a defective ladder; failed to inspect the ladder; stored the ladder outdoors; failed to construct the ladder and…”
Accident Prevention Division v. Stadeli Pump & Construction, Inc. (1974) orctapp · cites it 2× “ORS 654.005 (3) defines “employe” as “* * * any individual, including a minor whether lawfully or unlawfully employed, who engages to furnish his services for a remuneration, financial or otherwise, subject to the direction and control of an employer, and includes * * * any…”
Tozer v. Katerra Construction LLC (2025) orctapp “” 5 Relying on the definition of “[p]lace of employment” in ORS 654.005(8)(a), plaintiff argues that the van was a place of employment because “it is a movable or moving place where there is carried on any operation or activity related, either directly or indirectly, to an…”
Arriola-Caballero v. Vermeer Manufacturing Company (2025) ord · cites it 6× “Accordingly, the Court finds that he meets the definition of “nonsubject worker,” and the Richards Defendants are not owners for purposes of the ELL because their private home does not meet the statutory definition of “place of employment” in ORS 654.005. Third, the Richards…”
Santiago v. Farm West Labor Contracting Co. (2025) ord · cites it 4× “See ORS §§ 654.005(4)(a), 659A.001(4)(a). To determine whether Rainbow had “direction and control” or the “right to control” Plaintiffs, Oregon courts look to four factors: “(1) direct evidence of the right to, or the exercise of, control; (2) the method of payment; (3) the…”
Oregon Occupational Safety & Health Division v. Ostlie (1995) orctapp · cites it 2× “ORS 654.005 provides: “As used in this chapter, unless the context requires otherwise: “(6) ‘Owner’ means and includes every person having ownership, control or custody of any place of employment or of the construction, repair or maintenance of any place of employment.”
Groeneweg v. Jeld-Wen, Inc. (2020) ord · cites it 2× “” Or. Rev. Stat. § 654.005 (6). The owner of a premise is liable “if the regulation whose violation underlies the OSEA claim is one that either explicitly, or by nature, imposes obligations on owners of premises.”
Anderson v. Intel Corporation (2021) ord “Under the OSEA, 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.”
Groeneweg v. Jeld-Wen, Inc. (2023) ord “” ORS 654.005(6). Oregon courts have held that OSEA regulations may establish the standard of care in a negligence claim against an “owner.”
Clark v. Intel Corporation (2025) ord “was a ‘place of employment’ as defined in ORS 654.005(8).” FAC ¶ 22. Plaintiff alleges Defendant “failed to comply with every order, decision, direction, standard, rule, or regulation made or prescribed by the department in connection with the materials specified in ORS 654.”
Tozer v. Katerra Construction LLC (2025) orctapp “” 5 Relying on the definition of “[p]lace of employment” in ORS 654.005(8)(a), plaintiff argues that the van was a place of employment because “it is a movable or moving place where there is carried on any operation or activity related, either directly or indirectly, to an…”
M & M Wood Working Co. v. State Industrial Accident Commission (1954) or · cites it 3× “Under the general safety act, ORS 654.005 to 654.180, the general safety requirements are broader *614 than the specific provisions of the Factory Inspection Act.”
— 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 “See ORS §§ 654.005(4)(a), 659A.001(4)(a). To determine whether Rainbow had “direction and control” or the “right to control” Plaintiffs, Oregon courts look to four factors: “(1) direct evidence of the right to, or the exercise of, control; (2) the method of payment; (3) the…”
— 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 “See ORS §§ 654.005(4)(a), 659A.001(4)(a). To determine whether Rainbow had “direction and control” or the “right to control” Plaintiffs, Oregon courts look to four factors: “(1) direct evidence of the right to, or the exercise of, control; (2) the method of payment; (3) the…”
Arriola-Caballero v. Vermeer Manufacturing Company (2025) ord “Accordingly, the Court finds that he meets the definition of “nonsubject worker,” and the Richards Defendants are not owners for purposes of the ELL because their private home does not meet the statutory definition of “place of employment” in ORS 654.005. Third, the Richards…”
— 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-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.”
Anderson v. Intel Corporation (2021) ord “Under the OSEA, 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.”
Groeneweg v. Jeld-Wen, Inc. (2023) ord “” ORS 654.005(6). Oregon courts have held that OSEA regulations may establish the standard of care in a negligence claim against an “owner.”
Arriola-Caballero v. Vermeer Manufacturing Company (2025) ord “Accordingly, the Court finds that he meets the definition of “nonsubject worker,” and the Richards Defendants are not owners for purposes of the ELL because their private home does not meet the statutory definition of “place of employment” in ORS 654.005. Third, the Richards…”
— 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 “Accordingly, the Court finds that he meets the definition of “nonsubject worker,” and the Richards Defendants are not owners for purposes of the ELL because their private home does not meet the statutory definition of “place of employment” in ORS 654.005. Third, the Richards…”
Oregon Occupational Safety & Health Division v. Ostlie (1995) orctapp “ORS 654.005 provides: “As used in this chapter, unless the context requires otherwise: “(6) ‘Owner’ means and includes every person having ownership, control or custody of any place of employment or of the construction, repair or maintenance of any place of employment.”
Clark v. Intel Corporation (2025) ord “was a ‘place of employment’ as defined in ORS 654.005(8).” FAC ¶ 22. Plaintiff alleges Defendant “failed to comply with every order, decision, direction, standard, rule, or regulation made or prescribed by the department in connection with the materials specified in ORS 654.”
— 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 “” 5 Relying on the definition of “[p]lace of employment” in ORS 654.005(8)(a), plaintiff argues that the van was a place of employment because “it is a movable or moving place where there is carried on any operation or activity related, either directly or indirectly, to an…”
Tozer v. Katerra Construction LLC (2025) orctapp “” 5 Relying on the definition of “[p]lace of employment” in ORS 654.005(8)(a), plaintiff argues that the van was a place of employment because “it is a movable or moving place where there is carried on any operation or activity related, either directly or indirectly, to an…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 654.005(8)(b) — 1 case
Arriola-Caballero v. Vermeer Manufacturing Company (2025) ord “Accordingly, the Court finds that he meets the definition of “nonsubject worker,” and the Richards Defendants are not owners for purposes of the ELL because their private home does not meet the statutory definition of “place of employment” in ORS 654.005. Third, the Richards…”
— 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.