SALEM — Legislation bolstering the right to refuse dangerous work in Oregon is moving forward after key stakeholders struck a compromise, though a final deal hinges on future negotiations.

Federal and state laws already allow employees to turn down hazardous duties under certain conditions, but labor advocates complain the rules are too complex to be practicable.

“If you think of it as a shield, it’s a shield that’s so heavy and locked away that people can’t use it,” said Kate Suisman, staff attorney for the Northwest Workers Justice Project.

“We’re not trying to reinvent the wheel here. We’re just trying to streamline it and make it usable,” she said.

Changes to labor law under Senate Bill 907 would clarify the process for rejecting tasks believed to threaten life and limb without exposing the employee to retaliation.

Employees would be required to try reporting these fears to their bosses, who’d have an opportunity to respond to the objections.

If the concerns weren’t alleviated with additional training or protective equipment, for example, employees could use their vacation or sick time rather than perform the assignment.

“It does not give employees an unfettered right to refuse work. This bill is merely taking an existing right that is hidden in administrative rule and clarifying it in statute,” said Rep. Travis Nelson, D-Portland. “Nobody should have to forced to choose between paying bills and putting themselves at undue risk.”

The bill relies on terms such as “reasonable apprehension” that are subject to widely varying interpretations, said Sen. Bill Hansell, R-Athena.

While an apprehension may obviously be reasonable in extreme circumstances, such as temperatures of 117 degrees Fahrenheit, it may not be as clear-cut at temperatures of 99 degrees Fahrenheit, he said.

“Having grown up on a farm, you have heat and harvest and other things. What might have been reasonable to me may not have been reasonable to my dad,” Hansell said. “It’s pretty subjective in some cases. Are we opening up Pandora’s box?”

Critics of SB 907 argued that was precisely the problem.

Farm and business groups said they share the goal of worker health and safety, but claimed the new legal provisions would invite litigation.

The state’s heat and smoke rules are already the nation’s most protective, but SB 907 could expose farmers to liability even if they comply with the regulations, said Jenny Dresler, Oregon Farm Bureau’s director of grass roots and regulatory affairs.

“These are terms that are going to be defined in the courts,” she said. “And they’re going to be defined in the courts when our members are taken to court to determine what is reasonable in a particular situation.”

Representatives of labor and business groups were able to agree on an amendment that trimmed SB 907’s comprehensive procedures.

The amended bill simply declares it’s unlawful to fire employees who refuse to expose themselves to “serious injury or death arising from a hazardous condition at a place of employment.”

Implementing that provision will trigger a revision of the state’s occupational safety and health regulations, which involves a public process and input from affected parties.

The rule-making process will provide an opportunity to clarify regulatory language that labor advocates worry is currently too murky, Dresler said.

With the debate settled for now, the Senate Labor and Business Committee unanimously voted to recommend approving the bill, which was tentatively scheduled for a Senate floor vote this week.