Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 657.685 (2026)

Employment Appeals Board; confirmation; quorum; meetings; duties; staffing; rules

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

      657.685 Employment Appeals Board; confirmation; quorum; meetings; duties; staffing; rules. (1) The Employment Appeals Board hereby is created within the Employment Department.

      (2) The Employment Appeals Board consists of three members who shall be appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the Governor. Except for pro tempore appointments, appointments of members are subject to confirmation by the Senate in the manner provided in ORS 171.562 and 171.565. In the selection of the members of the Employment Appeals Board, the Governor shall give due consideration to the interests of labor, industry and the public. Not more than two of the members of said board shall belong to the same political party. The Governor shall designate one of the members of the Employment Appeals Board to serve as its chairperson with duties and powers necessary for the performance of the function of such office as the Governor determines. In the event of an absence or as required by the workload, the chairperson may appoint, with the approval of the Governor, pro tempore members to serve for a period not to exceed 90 days.

      (3) A majority of the Employment Appeals Board constitutes a quorum.

      (4) The Employment Appeals Board shall meet at such times and places as specified by the chairperson.

      (5) The director shall provide the Employment Appeals Board with such staff as is required by the workload, subject to budgetary limitations.

      (6) The Employment Department shall adopt procedural rules proposed by the Employment Appeals Board necessary for the discharge of the board’s duties. Such rules need not conform to common law or statutory rules of evidence and other technical rules of procedure. [1959 c.583 §12; 1969 c.597 §186; 1973 c.792 §30; 1975 c.426 §1; 1983 c.522 §9; 1987 c.894 §10; 1993 c.344 §22]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1975–1987 · leading case: McPherson v. Emp. Div., 591 P.2d 1381 (Or. 1979).
McPherson v. Emp. Div., 591 P.2d 1381 (Or. 1979). · cites it 2× “The assistant director has responsibility for the board's budget, ORS 657.685(6) and for prescribing regulations for "the conduct of hearings and appeals" on disputed claims, ORS 657.”
Trebesch v. Emp. Div., 710 P.2d 136 (Or. 1985). “The EAB may make procedural rules for the conduct of its own proceedings, ORS 657.685(7), but it has no substantive rulemaking authority.”
Carillo v. Emp. Div., 744 P.2d 1304 (Or. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2× “EAB may make procedural rules for the conduct of its own proceedings, ORS 657.685(7), but it has no substantive rulemaking authority.”
Philomath Forest Prods. Co. v. Emp. Div., 741 P.2d 912 (Or. Ct. App. 1987). “” In other words, aside from its authority to adopt procedural rules relevant “to the discharge of its duties,” ORS 657.685(7), EAB’s sole function is to decide questions of fact and law.”
Earl Smith Oil Co. v. Emp. Div., 530 P.2d 538 (Or. Ct. App. 1975). “This is an appeal under ORS 657.685 from an order of an Employment Division referee affirming a tax deficiency assessment of the Employment Division Administrator against petitioner, Earl Smith Oil Company, on payments to one George Benson.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 657.685(6) — 1 case
McPherson v. Emp. Div., 591 P.2d 1381 (Or. 1979). “The assistant director has responsibility for the board's budget, ORS 657.685(6) and for prescribing regulations for "the conduct of hearings and appeals" on disputed claims, ORS 657.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 657.685(7) — 3 cases
Trebesch v. Emp. Div., 710 P.2d 136 (Or. 1985). “The EAB may make procedural rules for the conduct of its own proceedings, ORS 657.685(7), but it has no substantive rulemaking authority.”
Carillo v. Emp. Div., 744 P.2d 1304 (Or. Ct. App. 1987). “EAB may make procedural rules for the conduct of its own proceedings, ORS 657.685(7), but it has no substantive rulemaking authority.”
Philomath Forest Prods. Co. v. Emp. Div., 741 P.2d 912 (Or. Ct. App. 1987). “” In other words, aside from its authority to adopt procedural rules relevant “to the discharge of its duties,” ORS 657.685(7), EAB’s sole function is to decide questions of fact and law.”
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.