Court Opinion

ID: 9608271
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 03:08:37.781184+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:00:55.905330
License: Public Domain

Baker, C.J.
(concurring) — I agree with the conclusion of the majority opinion. However, I do not agree that the issue of whether one is an employer, as defined in WISHA,34 can be determined by whether or not one is a business entity.
The majority opinion holds that the question of whether one is an employer can be answered without regard to whether one has any actual or legal control over the work-site. Instead, the majority proposes a two-stage analysis. First, we would determine whether an owner or occupier of the land where the work is being performed is an employer. That determination can be made, according to the majority, by looking at the status of the owner or occupier. Only if it is a business entity "organized to make money by employing other persons” can it be an employer.35 If it is such an employer, then we would look to see if the employer retained sufficient control over the work to impose upon it the statutory obligation of an employer to comply with applicable safety regulations on the worksite.
I respectfully disagree with the majority’s analysis. First, the statutory definition of employer is not restricted to business entities "organized to make money by employ*467ing other persons.”36 The statutory definition includes "persons,” as well as corporations and other business entities. For example, the proviso in this statute states: "PROVIDED, That any person, partnership, or business entity not having employees, and who is covered by the industrial insurance act shall be considered both an employer and an employee.”37 If "employee” means only business entities, no purpose would be served by the proviso’s reference to "person, partnership, or business entity.”38 The statute does not distinguish between or among employers suggested by the majority.
Second, the statute does not admit a two-stage analysis. If one is determined to be an employer under the act, then one is subject to the safety related duties of an employer. Under WISHA, an employer "[sjhall comply with the rules, regulations, and orders promulgated under this chapter.”39
The status of the owner of the property where the work-site is located should not be determinative. Absent the factor of control over the worksite, it should be irrelevant whether the owner is an individual or a business entity. It is more useful to focus on the status of the person or entity with whom the owner contracts. An owner—business entity or not—should be able to contract with a person or firm in the business of performing the type of work called for in the contract without becoming an "employer” under RCW 49.17.020(3). A principal reason for an owner to so contract is to be able to rely upon the experience and expertise of the hired contractor, both to do the work and to know and enforce applicable safety regulations.
As I read the statutory definition of employer, it tracks this reasoning. One cannot be an employer under the act unless one has employees, or "contracts with one or more *468persons, the essence of which is the personal labor of such person or persons.”40
If, instead of contracting with Righteous Roofing, Irving had contracted with two or more college students to do the roofing work on his house, he would in my opinion have contracted for the personal labor of those persons, and become an employer, as defined by RCW 49.17.020(3). Once someone does that, they become subject to the WISHA requirement to "furnish to each of his employees a place of employment free from recognized hazards that are causing or likely to cause serious injury or death ”41
When analyzing whether one is an employer under WISHA, I would focus on the status of the persons or entities who are contracted to do the work, rather than on the status of the owner as a business or nonbusiness entity.

RCW 49.17.020(3).

Majority at 461.

Majority at 461.

RCW 49.17.020(3).

RCW 49.17.020(3) (emphasis added).

RCW 49.17.060(2).

RCW 49.17.020(3).

RCW 49.17.060(1).