August 22, 2017

August 22, 2017

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

August 21, 2017

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Oregon Court Rejects BOLI’s New Guidance on Calculating Daily and Weekly Overtime for Mills, Factories, and Manufacturing Establishments

After the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) made a surprising change to its interpretation of how daily and weekly overtime should be calculated for employees who work in mills, factories, and manufacturing establishments, last week the Multnomah County Circuit Court issued an opinion rejecting BOLI’s new interpretation. In its opinion, the court held that BOLI’s original interpretation—i.e., that manufacturers are required to pay the greater of daily or weekly overtime hours worked by employees in a workweek (but not both)—was the correct way to construe manufacturers’ obligations under ORS 653.261 and 652.020.

According to the court, a manufacturing employer subject to both ORS 653.261 and ORS 652.020 must calculate both daily and weekly overtime in a workweek and pay the greater of the two amounts. The court reasoned that this interpretation creates a consistent reading of the two overtime statutes, prevents “double-counting” of overtime hours, and ensures all work performed in excess of 40 hours per week is paid at the rate of no less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay.

The court’s rejection of BOLI’s new guidance on calculating daily and weekly overtime, which is reflected in BOLI’s updated Field Operations Manual, may not be the last word on this issue.  The plaintiffs may seek review in an appeal to the Oregon Court of Appeals. However, before any such review might occur, the Oregon legislature could pass Senate Bill 984, which is intended to eliminate any ambiguity as to the calculation of daily and weekly overtime under ORS 652.020 and ORS 653.261 in a manner consistent with the court’s ruling.

For manufacturing employers subject to ORS 653.261 and 652.020, the new court opinion is an important consideration in determining compliance obligations.

© 2017, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., All Rights Reserved.


About this Author

James M. Barrett, Ogletree Deakins, Workplace Drug testing policy lawyer, labor rights attorney

James Barrett represents private and public employers in all aspects of employment-related disputes. He has defended clients against single plaintiff and class action lawsuits involving claims relating to wage and hour disputes, drug testing, whistleblowing, discrimination, and retaliation. He has also successfully obtained injunctive relief to enforce non-competition agreements against a client’s former employees.

Prior to joining Ogletree, James was a partner at Ater Wynne LLP in Portland, Oregon, where he represented private and public...

Ursula A. Kienbaum, Ogletree Deakins, Labor, waste disposal lawyer, telecommunications industries attorney
Of Counsel

Ursula Kienbaum has spent her entire legal career representing and counseling  employers in traditional labor and employment law matters. Specializing in traditional labor relations, particularly in the manufacturing, food processing, waste disposal, and telecommunications industries, Ursula represents employers in representation and decertification proceedings, union campaigns, strike preparation, contract administration, and labor arbitrations. Ursula also has significant experience investigating and responding to unfair labor practice charges before the National Labor Relations Board.